Gamers: AAA Titles Generally Aren't Shit.

[ResonanceGames]

You don't even see the contradiction in your post here. You conflate "I don't like game X" with "game X is awful", and then use the tired teenage cop-out by saying that it is your personal opinion and therefore unassailable.

Two different things, and I believe that at the root, attitudes such as yours are what has led to the OP's valid complaint. I, for example, do not care for, say, Modern Warfare 3 - but I know that while not being to my tastes, it is by no means a BAD or an AWFUL game. By the same token, I am fully aware that Wet isn't very good, but I am one of the few strange people who actually enjoys playing it. What one likes and what is objectively good (yes, there ARE objective criteria for judging entertainment, don't be silly) are ever two different things; people who get them mixed up are usually laughed at by the smart folks.

Humility. It's the one trait that the internet community desperately needs more of.

Nope. Read the whole thread. This is exactly the conversation I've been having with Xanadu84.

And again with the straw men. I never said my opinion is unassailable. In fact, feel free to disagree. But don't expect me to waste time putting caveats in every post I make about how "well, gee, I get that a lot of people like it, but...", as someone suggested to me earlier in the thread. That's as absurd as starting every discussion about a game you like with "well, I'm sure a lot of you will hate this game, but I like it."

 

[Zoop]

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".

Good games according to whom? Features considered bad by whom?

Subjectivity.

There is no universal checklist by which to compare a game and consider it 'bad'.

 

[GonzoGamer]

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

I understand what you mean but I think gamers who do complain are asking critics to have a bit of perspective.
I used to be a gamer who could only afford one or two new games a year so that $60 is very valuable to some.
Critics often get their games for free and that can sometimes dull that perspective of limited resources. So if someone goes out and gets something because the press says that it's revolutionary and amazing(terms they overuse), I can see them being disappointed if they finish it in a weekend or if it's so buggy that it becomes frustrating. You're right, by definition, AAA games should generally not be shit but the unfortunate thing is that they often get that AAA rep before anyone but critics have had a chance to play it.

The funny thing is that now that I'm wealthy enough to rent everything I'm curious about, I find that there are only one or two games that come out every year that are actually worth $60. And I'll pass on some highly rated games too. The Uncharted games are really entertaining smooth and fun to play...once. After that I'm done, so the rental is good enough. Bethesda games on the other hand are packed with tons of content that can take months to go through but trying to play them can be more frustrating than it's worth when the game just freezes constantly.

 

[ResonanceGames]

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.

I don't know why you replied to me. I don't disagree with any of this.

What I do disagree with is the implied expectation that we start off our opinion with an apology, since the game we didn't like was critically acclaimed or popular. Well, that's bull. If I didn't like a game and can clearly express my opinion as to why, then it's just as valid as anyone else's, no matter how many more of them there are than me.

 

[veloper]

"Shit" can simply mean mediocre to people who have a library of much better games to play in their free time.
Good and bad can be relative not just to all games out there, but also to your own selection.

So most AAA titles can be shit. Besides, "shit" sounds more definitive and edgy.

The AAA label only indicates high production values, such as pretty graphics and nice sound effects and not the more important aspects of gameplay and originality. Such games are often mediocre.

 

[Zoop]

I don't know why you replied to me. I don't disagree with any of this.

What I do disagree with is the implied expectation that we start off our opinion with an apology, since the game we didn't like was critically acclaimed or popular. Well, that's bull. If I didn't like a game and can clearly express my opinion as to why, then it's just as valid as anyone else's, no matter how many more of them there are than me.

I agree with this. There's nothing wrong with expressing dislike for a game, but claiming that it is a bad game as if it is fact is a different matter entirely.

Just because a game might have a few broken/buggy features, it does not mean that the game is 'bad'. If the general consensus is that the game is still worth playing despite the issues, then I hardly think it's fair to call it a bad game.

It's not an issue of "it's good because a lot of people think so"... wait, actually it is. If people perceive a game to be good, then it is safe to assume that it accomplished what it set out to do; entertain people. It might not be everyone's cup of tea, but it's still not a bad game because there is no universal list that dictates what constitutes a good or bad game. A few technical issues alone does not make a game bad.

 

[Zoop]

"Shit" can simply mean mediocre to people who have a library of much better games to play in their free time.
Good and bad can be relative not just to all games out there, but also to your own selection.

So most AAA titles can be shit. Besides, "shit" sounds more definitive and edgy.

It's also important to note that for some it's much easier to say a game is shit rather than post reasons why they dislike it.

 

[TrevHead]

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

I think ppl wouldnt care so much if AAA hadnt totally followed the big bucks and make games for a more casual market. The the AAA games of today no longer pander to their tastes.

Much of the reason so many PC gamers kicked up a fuss 5 years back was that pratically all the PC devs moved to consoles, with AAA games been very rare and mostly of shitty console port quality. If there would have been alternatives that they could have enjoyed playing hardly anybody would have grumbled.

Thats why with PC games starting to make a comeback and good PC games are been released even if they are still small in number its much rarer to see PC gamers ranting. Nowadays it tends to be just trolls and consolefanboys stiring things up.

 

[veloper]

"Shit" can simply mean mediocre to people who have a library of much better games to play in their free time.
Good and bad can be relative not just to all games out there, but also to your own selection.

So most AAA titles can be shit. Besides, "shit" sounds more definitive and edgy.

It's also important to note that for some it's much easier to say a game is shit rather than post reasons why they dislike it.

Yes I suppose I was approaching the OP too much from a monocle and twirly moustache point of view.

Shit to many gamers can simply mean a game they never even played, watched, read about, or even heared of before.

 

[ResonanceGames]

But that's not what you said. Your words were: "I think that the game is awful". You are making an objective statement, not giving your opinion - or worse, taking your opinion for an objective criterion. You are judging something (albeit ostensibly objectively) not based on its own merits, but on its appeal to you.

I didn't want to derail the thread with a self-indulgent mini-review, so I summed up my general take to make a point. I thought that was clear enough, but I guess not.

Also, my statement in no way implies that my opinion is an objective criterion -- you just pulled that argument out of thin air. It's nonsense.

If this were actually a discussion about a game I didn't like, I certainly would discuss more of its attributes -- good, bad, or neutral. But the fact that I can say a kind word about the art direction or animation wouldn't affect my overall view that a game like God of War is awful. Because I strongly feel that it is. If someone disagrees, that's fine. There is no right answer; which is kind of what my point has been the whole time, though several people seem hellbent on misconstruing it.

 

[Vegosiux]

It's also important to note that for some it's much easier to say a game is shit rather than post reasons why they dislike it.

Goes both ways, I know I know very well why I do or do not like a particular game I've played.

 

[Zoop]

Yes I suppose I was approaching the OP too much from a monocle and twirly moustache point of view.

Shit to many gamers can simply mean a game they never even played, watched, read about, or even heared of before.

Wherever monocles and twirly moustaches are involved, there is no such thing as too much.

I actually agree entirely with your previous post, though.

 

[Zoop]

Goes both ways, I know I know very well why I do or do not like a particular game I've played.

Indeed. I only meant that some people merely state that a game is shit, then they're too lazy to take the time to explain their point of view.

 

[Azuaron]

It's okay, 90% of everything is shit.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

I just have to say that the term "AAA game" is terribly misused on a regular basis.

AAA refers to high quality. Excellence. It is by definition something very, very good.

People seem to think it simply means "expensive".

Well, you're in part right. It just mean that it has a huge budget with generally large teams working on it. Marketing, execution, la did dah.

Excellence doesn't really have much to do with. In reality, people who say "expensive" actually are right.

OT: Yeah, it's pretty amusing how people still don't really understand your point at all. People who think triple A titles like Call of Duty and whoever said God of War probably have never actually played a shitty game before.

Are the games an automatic ticket for being a "good" game. Absolutely not. But are there really many AAA games that are bad? You'll be hard pressed to find one. Whoever said God of War up there... come on. Really?

 

[ResonanceGames]

OT: Yeah, it's pretty amusing how people still don't really understand your point at all. People who think triple A titles like Call of Duty and whoever said God of War probably have never actually played a shitty game before.

Why would you make that kind of assumption? I bought Daikatana and Trespasser back in the day. I remember when games were frequently released in a laughable technical state, or with goofy sound effects, awkward controls, and writing that makes today's scripts look like Mamet.

God of War is just as unplayable to me as many of those games, and it doesn't even have the excuse of having a small budget and a tiny team. The core game design of God of War is so fundamentally flawed that all the whizz-bang graphics and sound effects don't redeem it in the least. The whole experience has to be taken into account, not just the craftsmanship of certain elements.

 

[Scorpid]

I actually agree with a addendum. I don't hate MW series the Battlefield, Gears of War or EVEN darksiders. If Darksiders or MW3 had been my first experience with their gameplay style I would be happily calling them some of the best games of this console generation, but they're not. I've played MW1 and its clones, I've played Gears of War and IT's chest high wall clones, and God of War and it's massive amounts of clones. Most of these thanks to EA who thinks it's better to be so late to a party where the people that started it are already throwing up the nights content into a trash can. None of these games are bad, they're just rehashes, even the games you listed as bad suffer from this too. It's like if you went to a magic show and saw the magician do the same trick five times in a row and would only change his costume between each trick. It's still an amazing trick but it's the same thing over and over again with a different tacky suit.

Keep in mind that the internet is nothing if not a echo chamber but I still think that people don't hate these triple A games they expect better from them, I do at least. If MW had a maginificent epic story line that required a trilogy of games i could be more forgiving of the rehashing but it doesn't, Activision has released the same game four times in a row because that's four times the profit and that's it. The mechanics are still solid, the graphics superb, cinematic aspects are the best thing outside a blockbuster hollywood movie but it's the same kind of superb over and over again to the point that it become monotonous.

 

[Zoop]

reposted an older post, it seems. no idea how that happened.

 

[Exfil 22]

I'd say there's a difference between a terrible game and a game that isn't fun or was hyped up. The latter, such as DA 2 and Bioshock 2, are considered bad because they were boring, or had crappy characters, or were too short. These are legitimate grievances, but not reason to declare a game terrible. Truly terrible games are few nowadays, and so we expect much more and call below average games the worst thing ever. The problem is that there is too much hype. Honestly, if a game is playable, has even moderately good voice acting, the plot is understandable, and the playtime is multiple sittings (~10 hours), then I would consider it at least below average.

 

[CaptainOctopus]

Shit feels better to say than mediocre, also if you compare most of todays so called "tripple-A" titles to games that are actually great, fantastic or even amazing... well then they often are quite shit in comparison. Take most shooters for example and compare them to a 7 year old game like Half life 2. Besides some parts of the production value like the graphics most "AAA shooters" today still often have much worse ai, physics, facial animations, sound, no to little creativity in the weapons and enemies. Not to mention the all too often horrible level design, terrible pacing, poor art direction, shitty uninteresting story & locations, awful two-dimensional characters and so on.

So why the fuck would you give a game like Killzone 2 or Black Ops a near perfect score when those games totally fail at so many crucial levels?! And why do you take offense when someone like me thinks they are shit? Especially when they fucking ARE shit! Sure they might be great games if you just ignore the best and compare them to the absolute shittiest of games most idiot "professional" game journalist seem to do, but that does not change the fact that if compare them to the best, they're quite shit. And frankly I do not understand why you wouldn't compare all games to the best the market have to offer, even if or perhaps especially if it happens to be a 7 year old title. How else then would we see some fucking enthusiasm from the developers to create something beyond the shitty ordinary. Well that's just it, isn't it? We don't... shit.