I didn't care for Braid.
- Thread starter Space Spoons
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No, but if you consider it poor then it's definitely down to personal opinion. Therefore, a good response would be "I just didn't enjoy it as much as everyone else did", rather "It was crap and doesn't deserve the praise it gets".squid5580 post=9.69228.653544 said:
Actualy claiming it is crap is a completely valid opinion, as long as you can back it up.Geo Da Sponge post=9.69228.653556 said:
I think you should try harder to explore what you diden't like about the game. Infact I would like to se you review it negatively. Try playing it again and think over what you don't like.Space Spoons post=9.69228.653568 said:
Well, let's take a look at this post then...sammyfreak post=9.69228.653563 said:
Note the lack of a detailed argument, see how the opinion is summarised into a single term: crap. I know that you can't always give a seven page exposition on the subject of your post, but some detail, anything, would be nice.SaintDuskfall post=9.69228.653413 said:
Fair enough, but you can see why a lot of people wouldn't consider a game crap due to the lack of a dash button. While it makes things slightly slower, it doesn't really affect anything. You may be impatient, but a single point which could be argued over isn't really total evidence.Space Spoons post=9.69228.653568 said:
What next not like Half-Life or God forbid Portal. This forum is very biased on certain subjects and its suicidal to go against them.
EDIT:
-Meow
EDIT:
See?Eggo post=9.69228.653598 said:
-Meow
I think I should point out that I don't think Braid is a bad game. There's no question that it's well put together, and it's definitely got it's fans.
I, personally, just didn't care for it when I thought I would. That's one reason why I wouldn't give it a negative review, Sammy, unless it were based on personal opinion, rather than the merits of the game looked at objectively.
Mr. Pandah: Well, I DID enjoy Enter the Matrix. Yeah, it's a pretty broken game, and you can't play as Neo, but I still thought it was cool at the time...
I, personally, just didn't care for it when I thought I would. That's one reason why I wouldn't give it a negative review, Sammy, unless it were based on personal opinion, rather than the merits of the game looked at objectively.
Mr. Pandah: Well, I DID enjoy Enter the Matrix. Yeah, it's a pretty broken game, and you can't play as Neo, but I still thought it was cool at the time...
For a bit of perspective on cult classic recent games:
I loved Braid because of the art, music, puzzles and some of the story. (Although some of it was just incoherent and pretentious.) Also, it had a genuinely new idea (rewind-immune objects) and really did something with it.
I didn't like N+ because the learning curve was too steep, the graphics and music were boring, and there was no real payoff besides "You have unlocked level 26." It's not exactly the world's first running and walljumping game.
I liked Portal because of the sound, puzzles, writing and low opportunity cost (bundled with other good games). Also, it had a genuinely new idea and let you play around with it, while providing a good difficulty curve.
It is perfectly reasonable for someone to dislike Braid because they didn't care about the story. If you don't want to see the ending, it's hard to justify fighting your way through dozens of fiendish puzzles to get there.
I loved Braid because of the art, music, puzzles and some of the story. (Although some of it was just incoherent and pretentious.) Also, it had a genuinely new idea (rewind-immune objects) and really did something with it.
I didn't like N+ because the learning curve was too steep, the graphics and music were boring, and there was no real payoff besides "You have unlocked level 26." It's not exactly the world's first running and walljumping game.
I liked Portal because of the sound, puzzles, writing and low opportunity cost (bundled with other good games). Also, it had a genuinely new idea and let you play around with it, while providing a good difficulty curve.
It is perfectly reasonable for someone to dislike Braid because they didn't care about the story. If you don't want to see the ending, it's hard to justify fighting your way through dozens of fiendish puzzles to get there.
Fair enough.Space Spoons post=9.69228.653612 said:
I got both, *smiles smugly* but Braid is definitely my favourite.ElArabDeMagnifico post=9.69228.653623 said:
A review should not be objective, a review should relate your personal experience with the piece in question and why it was good/bad. Ultimately if you don't like the core idea or the spirit of a game it doesn't matter how well polished it is. Since you diden't have a positive experience with the game your review should focus on why not so that people who enjoy the same things as you should avoid wasting money/time on the game.Space Spoons post=9.69228.653612 said:
I guess this is one of the biggest problems of game critisism, people set up standards for what is a good game and punish any variation from that. Ultimately there is no concept for a good game and it all comes down to subjective reasoning.
But maybe I am taking this a bit to seriously, as it is easy to do with Braid
Because you cannot be objective in a review and trying to be so makes a things worse. As Yahtzee says any review is a subjective opinion. The gaming community at large has set up "objective" standards for what is a good game with little room for personal input. You like action RPGs? Then Diablo II is the game for you; FPS? Half-Life; Games where you play as a boy in a green suit? Ocarina of Time.Diogo Ribeiro post=9.69228.653802 said:
Take a movie like Kill Bill, some people loved it some hated it and those who hated it diden't say "those would like wacky over-the-top combat with heavily stylised art direction watch this movie", they said it was really bad. Those who liked it said it was really good, nobody called objetivity into play.
A reviewer should aim to give a decisive judgement of a product so people who have tastes in tuned with said reviewer can base their purchasing on his or her recomendation. A negative effect of this is found in games like GTA IV, MGS4 and Oblivion, all got high reviews everywhere (except with Yahtzee who actualy is a real critic) but there were still alot of people out there who diden't like the games for various reasons. As somebody on the forums here once said "Game critics should stop thinking about what people want to hear and focus on what they want to say".
Again, why? Who's to say my subjective experience with a game is more important or relevant to the end-user than how the game actually plays? Why is it worse to discuss how the game plays than how I feel about the game? Does it matter to the end-user that my experience with Metal Gear Solid 4 is one I could totally resonate with because the ability to hide in cardboard boxes and stab people reminded me of a time when I broke up with my girlfriend and wanted to do the same? It is a "subjective experience", after all. Or rather, shouldn't I be discussing how the game's way of juggling between cinematic sequences and gameplay segments doesn't always work out for the best?sammyfreak post=9.69228.653936 said:
If I wanted Yahtzee's opinion on reviews, I'd be asking him. And if I didn't make myself clear before, I'm asking for yours.
What the gaming community at large does is not necessarily representative of how reviews should be conducted. This is their tribalism at work, not a rule for everyone. In essence, that a gaming community leaves little room for personal input has no bearing on how a videogame journo should look at a game that a given community embraces.
And your point is... What? That, since you have one example (one that's not particularly well presented, but lets forget that t focus on the rest of the discussion) which excludes objectivity out of millions of other examples, it somehow renders all others null?
This seems farfetched. Are you suggesting a reviewer should only address a readership that's tuned to his own preferences? That leaves much less room for "personal input" than a review which pontificates on a game in a way that it carries the message across all possible readers, whether it does so objectively or subjectively.
And what they have to say can be done whether a review's content is objective or subjective.
You seem to come to the muddled conclusion that somehow, when a community grants status to their favorite videogames and a reviewer follows the rules the community has set up for itself, that this is a problem with the review's degree of objectivity, but don't seem to consider the possibility that it's a problem that has nothing to do with a text's objective or subjective aspects - rather, the journalist's poor handling of the work itself. Also, you seem to think that subjectivity somehow can't exist alongside objectivity when this isn't the case. Since you're fond of quoting someone else to validate your opinions, let me try something similar. I already gave my opinion, and now will take the time to point out the works of Kieron Gillen and even of your recurring example - Yahtzee. Much as their critiques are grounded on personal experiences, they have yet to deliver a review that does not, in some way, objectively mentions elements such as play mechanics.
I think pretty much everyone has covered it. I saw that it got good reviews, but didn't think much of it until I played it. For me it was amazing for the sole reason that I love puzzle games. Puzzle games are not that common, and not one with such depth. It is simple concepts, but the fact that it took three years shows how closely he spent designing the story, and puzzles. I really couldn't care much for Jonathan Blow, and I didn't even know it was his game until I was told after beating it. He is critical, and a bit of an ass. So what. The game is not for everyone, but in terms of gameplay it is very well executed and thought out. It is a short game, and once you figure out how to solve the harder puzzles then it is just a matter of execution. There really isn't much replay besides the speed runs. Puzzle games aren't about replay, but the experience. Personally, story for me doesn't add much and while it is interesting I focus more on the play and the art. Many people like story/narrative. What it comes down to with a game like this is simple, if you are a fan of puzzles then the fact that it plays out in a 2d-platform style is secondary.
The whole try before you buy thing comes into mind here. The reason why it has received high praise is because it is a very well designed, polished and cohesive game.
The whole try before you buy thing comes into mind here. The reason why it has received high praise is because it is a very well designed, polished and cohesive game.