Gamers: AAA Titles Generally Aren't Shit.

[Xanadu84]

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?

Ages ago, I started a thread about games that are good that you DON'T like. Its amazing how vehemently people resisted that idea. I think that my efforts to understand the strengths of games that I disliked have done moe then anything else to help me think critically about games. And backhanded compliments like, "Halo was an adoption of the shooter to consoles, so the bar was low" Didnt Help. There is wisdom in crowds, as much as we feel cool when we deny that.

 

[Waaghpowa]

Yes, everyone who doesn't like a "popular" or high profile AAA game is a dirty hipster who is hating because it's the cool thing to do to. It has nothing to do with their own standards of quality. They're all petty jerks.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

**snip**

You need to realize, OP, that what you're encountering is internet hyperbole.

"This game is shit!" translates to "I was moderately disappointed by this game!"

It's just like it's polar opposite:

"This game gets a 10/10! GOTY!" which translates to "I found this game satisfactory."

And no, so long as people can spew their opinions on the internet, there is no way to combat this. Just sigh and try not to get upset over it. That's what I do.

 

[StriderShinryu]

But.. but.. but... surely if I personally don't like something then it must be absolute shit. I mean, there's no way anyone could actually have a valid opinion on something if that opinion doesn't exactly match my own!

*mindblown*

 

[Dr Jones]

I have a golden rule i follow, when i have to judge games.
"Am I having fun?". If the answer is yes, then the game is usually good. I don't see the reason why anyone would hate AAA games. It almost seems like a form of hipster snobbiness to me. I dig Skyrim, i dig Halo, i dug CoD (played a bit too much).

 

[Xanadu84]

Easy. Taste is subjective.

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

Logical, factual reasons. I'm still waiting. I've run it through checklists of features that good games, both single and multi player, have, and features bad ones mishandle or don't have. Every single box is checked "Not present" or "So poorly implemented it had to be coded through a hangover".


The fact that people manage to find enjoyment in a box of excrement boggles my mind most of all.


Do I hate it because it's AAA or popular? Nope. I like plenty of popular AAA games. It's popularity has absolutely nothing to do with why I see it as a turd in a box.

I wish I could be a little less curt with this, but in what way is what you just said not HUGELY prententious? Should games not be fun, or should people not have fun with things you don't like? I'm sympathetic, I cant stand halo. I had the same indier-then-thou attitude to halo fans. But I largely got over it. Now, I avoid halo like the plauge, but obviously it did what it set out to do. Your criticisms can go to more critical thinking about games, and some criticisms may even be valid. That's great. But in this observable reality, CoD is doing a thing that is great for games to do.

 

[CrystalShadow]

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

How thorough was your poll though? Did you account for people with multiple systems? What did you actually ask? Ehm, not that this is particularly on-topic of course...

I own a Wii, and use it a lot. But if forced to choose I'd still claim to be a PC gamer. That's been the case most of my life though. I played a console, but I also owned a lot of PC games. Looking at it you'd be justified in calling me a Nintendo fan though, but really, I'm the kind of person that would own everything ever made if I had the money.
But whatever. That's kind of irrelevant.

As to the OP, well, AAA games may not be terrible, but they can be. And when you consider the money spent making one, they aren't necessarily as good as the cash spent on them would imply.

Is a game that cost 100 million to make 100 times better than one that cost 1 million? Very unlikely.
(Then again, it probably falls victim to a statement frequently made with regards to engineering; 90% of the cost lies in the final 10% - which is really just a generalisation that shows just how little extra benefit you get from trying to push things to the upper limits of performance.)

 

[T8B95]

Ages ago, I started a thread about games that are good that you DON'T like. Its amazing how vehemently people resisted that idea. I think that my efforts to understand the strengths of games that I disliked have done moe then anything else to help me think critically about games. And backhanded compliments like, "Halo was an adoption of the shooter to consoles, so the bar was low" Didnt Help. There is wisdom in crowds, as much as we feel cool when we deny that.

Indeed.

What I find facsinating is this: people will readily admit to liking a bad movie/game/TV show/brothel. However, they will defend to the death their opinion that a film/interactive media/television serial/lawnmower that they disliked must automatically be terrible.

What's so hard about saying "Oh, that's a good game, but it's not to my taste"?

 

[T8B95]

**snip**

You need to realize, OP, that what you're encountering is internet hyperbole.

"This game is shit!" translates to "I was moderately disappointed by this game!"

It's just like it's polar opposite:

"This game gets a 10/10! GOTY!" which translates to "I found this game satisfactory."

And no, so long as people can spew their opinions on the internet, there is no way to combat this. Just sigh and try not to get upset over it. That's what I do.

Thank you Bara . You just gave me a new term that I can use frequently.

Internet hyperbole...it's got a nice ring to it.

 

[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.

...yeah, between this...

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.

...and this, I'm fairly certain you aren't even reading our posts.

Then I'm fairly certain you don't understand the topic. I'm fine with disagreement, but accusations like that are uncalled for.

 

[Flailing Escapist]

Honestly I could give a shit if a game is a 'AAA' or 'Indie' or something in between. If it is good, it is good, if it is bad, it is bad. Of course the whole good bad thing is determined by the players themselves.

Just this, really. All I have to add is that more money does not make a better game/ gaming experience.

Thats what its all about: the exp.

 

[Xanadu84]

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.

When a games purpose is to be popular, then argumentum ad populum is not a fallacy. Should games endevor to not be popular and avoid fun in every case? Of course not. Being fun for many is a valid goal, and that goal has been achieved. To argue that CoD has failed implies a level ofpretentious hipsterdom I just cant accept.

 

[poodlenoodles]

No, I'm pretty sure I think the God of War games are awful. I don't care how respected the developer is, if they make a game that I don't find fun, I'm not going to apologize for my opinion just because a bunch of work went into it, or a bunch of critics and players liked it. They're asking 60 bucks for their product, all feedback that isn't rither mindlessly fellating or childishly bashing should be considered fair game, no matter how negative it is.

I'm not going to withhold honest feedback just to maintain the consensus.

Prepare to have your valid argument branded as hipster hating. I completely agree with you.

perhaps you should try saying,"i didn't like it, but, seeing as how popular this game is, you might."

 

[Xanadu84]

Ages ago, I started a thread about games that are good that you DON'T like. Its amazing how vehemently people resisted that idea. I think that my efforts to understand the strengths of games that I disliked have done moe then anything else to help me think critically about games. And backhanded compliments like, "Halo was an adoption of the shooter to consoles, so the bar was low" Didnt Help. There is wisdom in crowds, as much as we feel cool when we deny that.

Indeed.

What I find facsinating is this: people will readily admit to liking a bad movie/game/TV show/brothel. However, they will defend to the death their opinion that a film/interactive media/television serial/lawnmower that they disliked must automatically be terrible.

What's so hard about saying "Oh, that's a good game, but it's not to my taste"?

You just blew my mind.

Someone needs to explore this idea that admitting you like a bad movie is fine, but if it is disliked, it must be terrible. Ego defense maybe? Maybe what you dislike is more important to your sense of self then what you like? I don't know, but that is fascinating.

Well, that's a lot of typing on a tablet touchscreen. Time to leave the coffee shop..

 

[putowtin]

To quote the Grinch
"Well one man's toxic waste, is another mans pot-pourri..."

You don't like I a game, I do, you like something else, I think it's barely passable.
As is life

 

[SpaceBat]

snip

I didn't like it so it sucks isn't helpful feedback, because a game not catering to your personal tastes isn't necessarily a bad game. I do not enjoy Elder Scrolls games at all and I can easily come up with a huge list of reasons as to why I personally dislike the games, but I am capable of understanding that they are not actually bad games.

Most of the AAA Titles have their good and bad sides to them, it's just that people tend to ignore the side on that spectrum that doesn't suit them.

 

[Joepow]

Games do not come out in a vacuum. People have certain expectations from them.

You say that most AAA games are not terrible when compared to licensed games and shovelware. And generally you are correct. But by the same logic those shovelware titles aren't terrible when compared to shovelware from 20 years back. And no game is terrible when compared to a hypothetical game which has a bug that causes your computer to explode when you try to run it.

Gamers do not need perspective. You need to understand the context in which game criticism is made.

 

[Frostbite3789]

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

For one, Dragon Age 2 wasn't shit. That's exactly what he's talking about.

For two, I play the NHL games quite frequently. They are ridiculously well done.

 

[kasperbbs]

No, I'm pretty sure I think the God of War games are awful. I don't care how respected the developer is, if they make a game that I don't find fun, I'm not going to apologize for my opinion just because a bunch of work went into it, or a bunch of critics and players liked it. They're asking 60 bucks for their product, all feedback that isn't either mindlessly fellating or childishly bashing should be considered fair game, no matter how negative it is.

I'm not going to withhold honest feedback just to maintain the consensus.

If you don't like it it doesn't mean it's awful, if people like the game they have a right to be hyped about it and they are not wrong, neither are you. I personally can't stand any of the final fantasy games, but i'm not screaming at the fan boys that they are wrong and their favorite game is a pile of **** with a mickey mouse in it.

 

[ResonanceGames]

When a games purpose is to be popular, then argumentum ad populum is not a fallacy. Should games endevor to not be popular and avoid fun in every case? Of course not. Being fun for many is a valid goal, and that goal has been achieved. To argue that CoD has failed implies a level ofpretentious hipsterdom I just cant accept.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Your argument just went completely off the rails. It is argumentum ad populum to say that something is popular, therefore it is objectively good.

It is not argumentum ad populum to say something sold many units, therefore it completed its goal of being popular -- which is the point you just unwittingly made. That still doesn't imply any objective value as to the quality of the game, because "popular" doesn't mean it must be individually liked.

Should games endevor to not be popular and avoid fun in every case?

Also, this is a total straw man. You are just tossing out the fallacies left and right today. No one said or implied anything like that.

Lastly, I never said anything about COD, especially that it "failed." That is a non sequitur. However, COD cannot be objectively good, and if someone's opinion is that it's bad, it's still valid, regardless of the game's popularity. I'm perfectly willing to accept that a lot of people enjoy COD. I personally find its single player campaigns tedious and poorly-designed.