Is the 'Competent Game' the new 'Perfect Game'?

[theonecookie]

Wait what did you even read your own post , you call new games nothing but dull rehashes and then point to metal gear solid , soul caliber and Gran Turismo as your aces in the hole are you high

Metal gear solid was nothing more than an updated metal gear soul caliber was nothing more than a well done arcade fighter and gran turismo was just a slightly more realistic version of racing games that all ready excited

so in reality they where about as innovative as my left thumb so take your head from up your own arse take off the rose tinted specs and come up with a better argument

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I'm not sure even graphics escapes the unimpressed gamer.

Let's take Final Fantasy 13 for example if that had come out around the time 7 was released we would have gone mental about it just because of the cutscenes.

These days we are chasing a new high and developers are finding it hard to figure out exactly what that is.

I have a lot of respect for Skyrim because you can see how much effort went into it. Meanwhile DA2 despite being on equal graphical ground and has arguably deeper characters seems like a cash in to me because of the overused, bland environments and over simplified gameplay.

I think it's a balance of depth of gameplay and attractive graphics (not necessarily realistic) that gaming is looking for. Funnily enough its indie games like Bastion that are getting this right.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

I agree with you to the extent that a lot of review scores have really lost the plot. When it gets to the stage that people will think you're bashing on a game for giving it an 8/10 then you have a problem, and at times it seems that some reviewers feel obligated to give a game a good score out of 10 even if it didn't light their fire, just because its a big AAA title and people will get all pissy if they don't.

That said however, I'm getting a little sick of the 'this game is too similar to it's predecessor/doesn't completely revolutionize the genre, therefore it is bad and it is stagnating the industry.' Because that is just not true. I don't really need to go into detail about this because Eclectic Dreck said it all for me. The only thing I can add is that I'd rather have an industry full of annual sequels and almost no innovation, than an industry where developers think they have to turn their formula upside down for each new game and make a lot of unnecessary changes, lest someone call them out for 'lack of innovation'. Constantly respond to feedback and look for ways to improve the formula yes, but change just for the sake of change is almost never a good idea, because those changes will be pointless, poorly thought out, and will get in the way of the stuff that was already good.

Final thought... Interesting that when people talk about 'lack of innovation' in the games industry, they choose to talk about franchises like CoD, and yet steer clear of franchises like Mario, which have been around for even longer and changed even less.

 

[4RM3D]

Like I just said - we were always obsessed with graphical perfection. Anyone who tells you differently is talking out their ass.

The pursuit of graphical perfection has been THE single biggest driver behind the creation of a new console in all of gamings history. Always. Even back with the creation of the Atari 2600 - its one advantage over the Magnavox was its graphics. In fact, the fact that not as many ;people are clamouring for a new generation now shows that people actually care about graphics LESS now than they ever have before in gaming.

Interesting. Though I am not getting that impression.

And how in the hell can you hold up Modern Warfare 3 as part of this so called "obsession with graphics"? That game couldn't care less about graphics - its got a version on the freaking Wii, for fucks sake.

Not specifically about graphics, but about "games have become a serious business". Which doesn't always turn out well (for gamers):

*points at Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 (again)*

But it ain't just MW3. It's just the most recent and most popular example.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I know what you mean and even though they say "don't fix what's not broken" it really doesn't excuse reused plots, themes, gameplay mechanics etc. Sometimes I can see it being acceptable like for example if they were remaking a game like Gradius 3 after years of games coming and going that had moved on. It seems though, the whole game rating system is broken to begin with. It's not just that same-ol' is capable of a perfect/ near perfect score but the fact that it's expected for a game to earn an 8 or higher if it doesn't want to be considered a failure.

 

[4RM3D]

So, in the face of factual evidence, you are saying "My gut feels different".

It isn't a fact (yet) unless you have a few sources to support your hypothesis. And even then it can be disputed. But I won't go as far as that. However, a source confirming what you have said, is still preferable.

Let me get this straight. Modern Warfare 3 does not demonstrate this so called "obsession with graphics" (which is not new in the slightest as I have proved), and yet it is still the best exaple of this so called "serious business thing", which an "obsession with graphics" comprises half of.

That serious business goes much further than graphics alone. I just specifically mentioned graphics and the lack of difficulty of games. I could go into great lengths, but I don't have the time now, because I have to attend to a Christmas party. And it would go way beyond the scope of this thread anyway.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I'm not sure even graphics escapes the unimpressed gamer.

Let's take Final Fantasy 13 for example if that had come out around the time 7 was released we would have gone mental about it just because of the cutscenes.

These days we are chasing a new high and developers are finding it hard to figure out exactly what that is.

I have a lot of respect for Skyrim because you can see how much effort went into it. Meanwhile DA2 despite being on equal graphical ground and has arguably deeper characters seems like a cash in to me because of the overused, bland environments and over simplified gameplay.

I think it's a balance of depth of gameplay and attractive graphics (not necessarily realistic) that gaming is looking for. Funnily enough its indie games like Bastion that are getting this right.

I think it was understandable to be awed by sweet cutscenes when even the cutscenes of some games were rendered like shit. Besides, when FFIX came out it boasted 1 WHOLE HOUR of cutscenes spread through 4 disks and an average 40 hours of gameplay. Compare it to the stupid amount of cutscenes we get today and which aren't really that impressive compared to the actual graphics in the games we are playing and the question arises. Why do we have to sit through this boring shit? Why won't you let me play the bloody game?

That was kind of my point. What impressed us then doesn't impress us anymore. It's going to take something else.

 

[Magnicon]

Major companies in all forms of entertainment realized a long time ago that they could dumb things down, saving time and money, and the masses will gobble it up if its marketed well.

When the masses showed that they have little to no standards, it showed the companies that this lack of quality was ok, and it started a cycle of quality getting lower every year.

The result are games like Skyrim.

Skyrim is basically a 10 year old game with 1 year old graphics. They have added nothing new of value to the series since Morrowind, and in fact have REMOVED some things.

Virtually every single feature in the game appears to be unfinished, like they just decided at some point that it was enough to be base line functional so why bother spending the time and money to finish it.

They then spent a ridiculous amount of money marketing the game, and what do we get? A generic run of the mill TES game thats touted like its the greatest video game of all time. (ive actually seen many people call it that)

I see some people saying, "if Morrowind was great, and they just shined that up a bit, doesn't that make Skyrim great?". The answer is an enormous NO. That doesn't make it a BAD game, just not a GREAT game.

I've put over 120 hours into Skyrim personally, so it obviously has to be a reasonably good game, but that is a really far cry from the chants of "innovative", "revolutionary", "game changing", and "greatest game ever" that I've been seeing everywhere.

When I judge entertainment, I look at the big picture. I look at the mistakes that were made, and wonder why they let those get through. I look at the unfinished features and wonder why they thought that was good enough.

"Without a doubt, this has been our most ambitious project ever," said Todd Howard, Game Director on Skyrim. "After over three years of development, we're finally excited to get it into everyone's hands."

Think about what that means. Really take a look at what Skyrim actually added and subtracted from the series, and hold that up to "most ambitious project ever".

In my book, it falls extremely short, and thats on par with how the major studios work now. They make grandiose claims that build hype, but the final product simply doesn't hold up anymore.

One final thing to note. They announced more then a month before the release that they were already working on two DLC's. Take from that what you will.

 

[Syzygy23]

I think that the word "iteration" gets a lot of bad press these days. Lots of people like to point to some ancient title and laud how innovative some feature was or how original some idea is while, at the same time, decrying some game for simply "copying" from another. Yes, there are plenty of games that are unashamedly rip-offs of another franchise but that does not mean a game that iterates is somehow unworthy of praise.

No human endeavor, not even any idea has even been constructed in a vacuum - nothing we have ever done is utterly unique. What people do is not innovate. People iterate. We take old ideas and we make them better. This is never more obvious than when we look at video games. Innovation, it turns out, is just a word we use when something iterates and we are unable to determine the original form.

Consider short list of games in the first two posts here: Skyrim, Crysis, Gran Turismo, Soul Calibur, and Metal Gear Solid. The latter group were lauded for innovation without a trace of irony or sarcasm to be found. Consider the following, then:

Crysis: Notable for being a technological marvel. Considering the FPS has, since it's inception, often been concerned with doing this exact thing and further considering that the game presented literally no technology not seen in some other game, this most notable of point becomes quite meaningless. Beyond that, you were given a first person shooter that gave the player a set of abilities that could alter the basic dynamic from run and gun or hide and shoot. This exact set of abilities exists, in some form or another, in dozens of prior games. Mechanically it is obviously iterative at best and narrative it is positively derivative.

Gran Turismo: A game notable for being an early example of simulation as game mechanic. Beyond that, it is a racing game of which there were hundreds of examples before. A racing game with a slightly more rigorous application of physics is hardly a quantum leap or an idea born of whole cloth.

Soul Calibur: Functionally, the game is essentially Tekken played with weapons. The weapons themselves serve little purpose beyond helping justify differences in rate of attack and range.

Metal Gear Solid: This one is painfully obvious, really. Mechanically, it is simply a translation of the old Metal Gear games to 3d and metal gear itself had little to distinguish it from any of a dozen NES games. Narratively, the game simply went the Custscene route which was not new in games by any stretch and, considering movies have been around awhile, aren't new in concept.

Iteration is not a shameful thing; it is how progress is made. Iteration is what eventually lead to the idea that "Racing Game" might refer to something like Mario Kart or something that gives a valiant attempt at simulation like Gran Turismo. And, sometimes, iteration does nothing but further refine what already was. Skyrim is, simply put, an Elder Scrolls game. While there are things about the game I wish was better (that isn't worth going into here), the game made significant strides in constructing a believable and interesting world even if the basic formula remained the same. And I might not understand why people would so eagerly await a game like Starcraft 2 when it, to my untrained eye, seems identical to a game made fifteen or so years ago, having played another RTS at length I can understand that a relatively minor tweak can utterly change how the game plays out.

Sure, not all iteration is a step forward. But sometimes the market simply doesn't want a step forward. We can all say we want Call of Duty to be different but when Activision makes a few hundred million dollars in a week on the latest version, it makes it seem silly to demand it be different. Sure, I want it to be something different but the sales tell me that most people want the last thing but more of it.

And, to be honest, there is something to be said for being able to make the best version of a product with little variation. Reach represents the best Halo as far as I'm concerned even though it rarely strays from the formula. Mechwarrior 4 is my favorite iteration of Giant Walking Tank combat game in spite of all the blasphemy. Human Revolution might not edge out Deus Ex in terms of my favorite, but if I'm being honest I think Human Revolution is the better game.

TL;DR

Ecclesiastes 1:9

What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

This was a known fact over 2000 years ago, maybe longer. We need to get over it.

 

[DarkRyter]

They enjoy the game.

They enjoy the game alot.

They give it a really high score.

There's really nothing more to it. Doesn't matter if the game is a rehash. Doesn't matter if it's competent or not. Doesn't matter whether it's original.

When a person reviews a game and gives it a score, whatever score they give isn't some measure on the game itself. It's a measurement of how much the reviewer, as a human being with feelings and emotions, enjoyed the game.

 

[Veldt Falsetto]

(dragons in skyrim are freaking gimmicks)

Lemme just take that and urgh yep here I go

(Boss fights are gimmicks)
(Guns are gimmicks)
(Jumping is a gimmick)
(Free control is a gimmick)
(Text is a gimmick)

...yeah, no. Dragons aren't gimmicks

They are gimmicks. That's what the plot device catalyst in TES games has always been. In Oblivion it was the "Oblivion" gates (iconic looking structures that could be broadcast in adverts), in Skyrim it's the dragons.

They make no difference to the game beyond the quests that they are involved in and occasional encounters that give you a bit of gold and the ability to use their secondary gimmick, dragon shouts.

If you think hundred clones (I know, some are stronger than others, big whoop they're all easy) flying around attacking you at random in the same way for the same reward is not a gimmick, then you've got a hideously low valuation of core gameplay features. Which wouldn't surprise me, games and potentially gamers these days are eternally losing their values.

Boss fights are a gimmick? No, they were a primal solution to how to end levels - when designers in the earliest days of gaming wanted to end a level they had a boss fight.

Guns are gimmicks? Are you kidding? If it's a first person shooter then how could guns be gimmicks? Are you trying to tell me you could not advance the TES quest chains in any way without dragon encounters?

Jumping, Free Control, Text? You're obviously trying to make some snide point but the fact is essential parts of a game's construction or plot progression are not equal to the dragons in Skyrim.

If you want to know a new thing in Skyrim that isn't a gimmick, then I'll begrudgingly list the new way of casting Magic - it adds new levels to the gameplay, when you combine spells etc.

Other things in Skyrim that are gimmicks:

- Quest Generation etc (I forget the term they used to describe it "ambient awesome" or something, it's crap and has been done better since True Crime: Streets of LA)
- Streamlined skills (The skills were fine as they were, if you ask me streamlining the skills was just another "appealing to the casual audience" piece of poop.)
- Dragon Shouts - They are barely ever game changing'ly useful. It's not like there's a series of puzzles in some caves that can only be accessed by a certain shout, Zelda style, EDIT: I know there are a few, but it's not the rule and that's what I'm referring to. and it's not like it helps out much in battles. I mean sure, it's always helpful to freeze enemies into ice cubes for a while but it's not like the combat system would be broken without shouts. Really, really good on tv adverts.
Dragon Encounters - Mobile mini-boss fights with barely any reward (a bit of gold and some - heavy-as-f*ck bones, and a soul *yay*) and no variation. Really, really good on tv adverts.

Things Skyrim did well:

- Nord mania. It may seems tiresome after you hear the same nordic accent being spoken by each and every large pale man in the game, and the music may be boring and bland on a level that shames the previous TES games, but as with all TES games the developers have done a great job of simulating a new and unique province of Cyrodil. Morrowind and Imperial province both dripped specific charm and lore, and Skyrim does too.
- The dragon language. Cheesiness aside, doing their best to have a good sounding few words for the dragons was a great touch which added some flavor and quality to proceedings. Krrrooosiiisss.

Things Skyrim didn't do so well:

- The rebellion. Conflict is no where near common enough, there's no sense of obstruction caused by the rebellion, and the whole thing gets resolved by a few middling battles over forts (seriously, about three or four of them) in the middle of no where and a final, sterile, restricted run around in Windhelm.
- The Guild chains. Not only are there no more mage/fighters guilds, the chains that have replaced them are all only about five hours long.
- End-game. This has always been a problem with The Elder Scrolls, as soon as you start completing quest chains - becoming Arch Mage and such - the game disintegrates. No one gives a crap that you're the head of three guilds AND trying to kill the emperor for the Dark Brotherhood. No one gives a crap that you're the Arch Mage, either, when you talk to half the NPCs in the Mages College and they not only talk to you like you're still an entry level student, they also deliver quests unto you that involve sneaking around dormitories and similar. When you walk around town no one says "Oh my god, it's such an honour to finally meet you" like they did in Morrowind.

There's more in each category (including the 'skyrim did well' category) but that's enough, I think.

You're right I was just making a snide point but my point was, dragons, in my eyes, are just like having random boss battles. Your character's goal as dragonborn is to "slay dragons and steal their souls" just as dragonborn of the past have done. It's a main part of the game. Like I said, I see them as boss battles and if they are just gimmicks then so are boss battles, something we've loved for a very long time and if boss battles are then what isn't? I'm sure there was a time when the first jump button was added to a game and people weren't going "oh, what a gimmick" even though it techincally is, you don't NEED the ability to jump.

I'm not saying Skyrim was perfect or that it didn't have problems because it does but saying a key feature of the game is just a gimmick kinda lessens how much work was put into it and how much it really adds to the game

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

One of the very few original games I played was the original Hitman. Just think about it. Think about the concept of that game and it's approach to stealth genre. Every Hitman sequel improved upon that model. Sure sequels weren't groundbreaking. But they added good things to an already excellent game. That's not a bad thing. That's how this industry works, or how it should work. There are no original ideas. Every idea is a derivative of something that already exists in some other form. Best we can do is improve upon the original. The problem is, gaming industry isn't doing that anymore (there are exceptions like Arkham City in my opinion). In video game industry, it seems we're seeing a lot of dumbing down to appease the non-gamer masses (kids and idiots). Just look at the gameplay trailer for Hitman: Absolution. It's pathetic.

 

[JohnDoey]

Does Subjective opinion not exist anymore, some people are going to like certain things more than you get over it.

 

[Palademon]

Yep, Xenoblade Chronicles changed nothing.
God knows in recent years we've been bombarded by JRPGs with massive open areas with no invisible walls, british acting, lots of side quests, no random battles, male slut armour, and exciting cutscenes that even adjust your armour to the set you currently wearing.
So cliche.

 

[Legion IV]

You DARE insult Xenoblade Chronicles!? The game that quite possibly qualifies for my most favourite game of all time!?

I hate to say this but this always frustrates me. How can a game thats not even a year old be your favorite game? how many times have you beat it? It seems highley improbible it can be your favorite game of all time.

If you can playthough it like over 10+ times and be able to play it and still enjoy it years and years later then sure, but juts throwing that title out there?


OP: Blazing Souls (original) so i have to use my Japenses ps2 but the original just feels so much better then the English release. 5 years since the release and over 15+ playthroughs, i still love this game to death, its RPG Perfected, made my the greatest developer Idea Factory. Lol before the english locilizatio came out (in 2010, Jp release 2006) I've been forced to learn a bit of japenses by playing the game and Aam proud to say i can speak some very broken Japenses words and phrases now lol.

 

[Something Amyss]

People often make claims like yours and I am quite inclined to agree with the observation. But then I'm forced to remember that there are myriad factors that serve to cloud my perception.

There have been a couple posts that have broken this down with critical reviews, be it aggregates or what have you, and you get more 5 star games in a year than Hollywood has movies in a decade.

I tend to believe that this alone is enough to demonstrate it's more than just perception.

I mean, it's not a study, but it's enough to indicate a trend.

I also don't think your statement holds any different from films, because what gets reviewed most are big blockbusters with veteran crews or indie darlings, just like video games.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

People often make claims like yours and I am quite inclined to agree with the observation. But then I'm forced to remember that there are myriad factors that serve to cloud my perception.

There have been a couple posts that have broken this down with critical reviews, be it aggregates or what have you, and you get more 5 star games in a year than Hollywood has movies in a decade.

I tend to believe that this alone is enough to demonstrate it's more than just perception.

I mean, it's not a study, but it's enough to indicate a trend.

I also don't think your statement holds any different from films, because what gets reviewed most are big blockbusters with veteran crews or indie darlings, just like video games.

You do miss my point it would seem. While I tend to agree with the perception that game ratings are skewed, that comes with the caveat that my perception is filtered such that I am only likely to pay attention to games that were at least competently made. The posts on the subject provide only anecdotal evidence. If you goal is to demonstrate a flaw in the scoring system, you'll need stronger evidence than that.

 

[Flailing Escapist]

Its probably because its so easy to make poor games and make money. Also because there are so many games and sequals of games out there that unique and innovative games are much harder to come by then they were last generation or the generation before that.

SOOOOO

Because there is

A. such a large quantity of games
and
B. because many new games fear to step out of set patterns and they may not make the money the put in (and profit) back

there is a lack of innovative games recently and thus reviewer's scores are off.

Or something

 

[skywolfblue]

Is a game that's merely competent but given a little more polish what we consider an outstanding, perfect game?

Who's saying it's only "merely competent"? To some it may be the best game ever, but it just doesn't appeal to ~your~ particular tastes.

Whoa, hold your horses! As explained previously I in no way said I dislike the games named above, or that I look down upon those who do. But just because you enjoy a game immensely doesn't automatically make it a near perfect game.

Why not? Gaming is entirely subjective. Therefore, anything I find I enjoy immensely is "Perfect" for me. There is no objective "perfect".

Personally, I say we need game critics instead of game reviewers. Game reviewers state their opinion on the game, and often their scores and opinions are biased by how much they enjoyed said game. It is what they're paid to do.
Game critics, on the other hand, should analyse the game and point out what it does wrong and right, and in the end score it based off that. Something like CoD (Random, easy example. Don't hate me) would get a 9/10 from reviewers, who loved playing it and thus scored it well, whilst from a critic it would likely get a 5 or a 6 due to the problems it has, and its shortfallings too.
Really, we need more people like a serious version of Yahtzee. People who find out what is wrong with the game and laud it for everyone to see and know. Whilst CoD is fun and entertaining to many, it is by no means a remarkable game in either its playstyle nor its technological side, and very little has changed from previous titles. Looking at that stuff, CoD deserves a near perfect score from a reviewer who likes the game, but a mediocre score from a critic who does not let whether or not they enjoyed the game and like the series affect their scores near as much as a reviewer.
Reviewer looks past the mediocre graphics, the terrible lag some people (But maybe not them) experienced, the fact that nothing new has been done and much is the same, the fact that the story is merely mediocre; not brilliant, and the various other problems that CoD as a series has.
Critic plays the game, looks past themselves enjoying it and notices that the graphics are only mediocre, pays attention to the fact that many experience bad lag issues, notices that the game is nearly the same as its predecessor - and its predecessor before that, looks past the action packed campaign gameplay to notice the story is really meh, and tries to pay attention to as many details in the game as they can.
When each gives their score, the critics will end up lower than the reviewers, as the looked past how much they enjoyed it, and saw all of its faults, pointing them out. The reviewer didn't care about these faults and thought others wouldn't either.
This is why I prefer critics to reviewers - I can't trust a single word the reviewer has to say, and honestly don't care if they enjoyed the game or not, only what problems it has, and how it works, leaving me to make my own opinion with as much info as possible.

? Critics aren't flawless like you make them out to be. They're influenced by their likes and dislikes just like normal reviewers. If they don't like romance they'll bash a game for having romantic elements, if they like cliché magic and wizards then they're less likely to bash a game for having cliché magic and wizards. Yahtzee's videos are at least 90% completely his own biased opinion. (An opinion that I find funny to watch from time to time)

 

[Fleetfiend]

Is a game that's merely competent but given a little more polish what we consider an outstanding, perfect game?

Who's saying it's only "merely competent"? To some it may be the best game ever, but it just doesn't appeal to ~your~ particular tastes.

Sequels with improved graphics and slight tweaks to previous instalments. Or if not direct sequels, cliches or blatant copies of other titles.

Why does being a sequel mean the game cannot be "perfect"? They take an idea some people loved, and improved on it, so in many cases the sequel ends up fixing a lot of the flaws and making a much better game.

I think you're blowing that a little bit out of proportion. The OP wasn't using "merely competent" as an insult to games that are getting widely recognized acclaim, and they never said something about sequels not being any good. They were just saying that games are being recognized less by their originality, and more more their simple improvements over previous, similar titles.

And there are always exceptions, but I wholeheartedly agree.