It's not a bad game.

[LeonLethality]

I hear a lot of people calling most new games bad but, I would think they are not. They aren't good but far from bad. Many people who have never played the NES or atari2600 era have never really experience a truly bad game, many of the games for those systems are horribly unplayable and compared to most modern games they fall flat on there faces. So why do people think they can truly call most games bad, many of them I would call mediocre, average, playable but something you wouldnt miss not getting.

 

[Proteus214]

There were plenty of mediocre games on the old consoles, but out of the 200-something NES titles, I owned roughly 9 or 10. Many of those games that I owned are considered to be the classics of the day because in the sea of poo that was the original NES library, they were shining examples of how game design is done.

Let's put it this way, the first time you drink beer, you have something more expensive like Guiness. It's smooth, it's dark, it's tasty. You have a few of those, then you drink a Molson Canadian, not a bad beer, but not as good a quality. You think it's gross and vow to never drink swill like that again. Now, if only your first beer had been a Pabst Blue Ribbon or a Budweiser, you would have much more appreciation for the Molson.

 

[LeonLethality]

2. Why is that all one sentence with three commas?

sorry I just woke up and punctuation isnt a morning thing I suppose I will fix it.

 

[Darenus]

I would agree with you on many aspects. A lot of games, wether they are good, superb, average, safe or whatever, they all certainly have something that is a saving grace which makes the game not as bad as some like to declare it.

Yet I also have learned that next to anything in aspects is to be taken in relation and from a point of view.

Let's go with one of the worst reviewed releases of 2008. Turning point: Fall of Liberty.

By the standards of when this game arrived it surely was surpassing in pretty much nothing that would save the game itself. The graphic looks laughably dusty, the level design was either uninteristing or confusing, the AI was downright pittiful, the controls were meh (as in they felt like total standard minus 5% or something) and the story while offering a nice alteration on the WW2 era fell flat as you singlehandedly downed the entire 3rd-Reich's army in the USA. Not in Germany or Europe, mind you.

For the 2 only saving graces there were, there was an alternative take on destroying incomming tanks by blowing them up with charges by fusing bombs manually with wires (almost a no-brainer tho) and the music is declared rather outstanding compared to the average scores for FPS titles.

With all that said, TP:FoL would still be considered GOOD if you were comparing it against various older releases of next to any kind as by then standards would have been lower. But if you consider they actually released the game as such and expected it to be a full price worthy title is sheer dumb and an attempted rip-off of shooter enthusiasts and Virtual-WW2 veterans.

Things that are comming out nowadays and are declared BAD often enough leave a general feeling of dissatisfaction behind, especially when people pay the full price on a game that would in fairness best be at about 10-20 bucks worth if you compare it to older releases.

Nonetheless, it overall boils down to either it being a Good+ title or a Bad+ title, as it's always comming to a personal opinion wether or not it was fun enough for the person including all the reasons how and why he got the game.

 

[LeonLethality]

Nonetheless, it overall boils down to either it being a Good+ title or a Bad+ title, as it's always comming to a personal opinion wether or not it was fun enough for the person including all the reasons how and why he got the game.

yeah I dont like the whole good or bad no middle ground thing that has started up, I remember back when there was no internet to look to and it all boiled down to "this game looks good lets give it a try" and if you didnt like the game you would still play it because somethings gotta be good but now if somethings bad the whole games bad and crap, I tend to be more forgiving to games faults because they are damn hard to make.

 

[Gyrefalcon]

I hear a lot of people calling most new games bad but, I would think that they are not. They aren't good per se but they are far from bad. Many people who have never played games from the NES or atari2600 era have never really experience a truly bad game, many of the games for those systems are horribly unplayable. Compared to most modern games they fall flat on there faces. So why do people think they can truly call most games bad, many of them I would call mediocre or average. They are playable but tend to be something you wouldn't miss not getting.

You were born in 1992. Did you even get to play an Atari or NES? We didn't think most games were bad back then. In actuality, it was great to get ANY new game. And it was a period of experimentation. Have you played as a chef trying to put together cakes with icing and a cherry on top with a conveyor belt that was continuously speeding up? How about an RPG where your enemies could turn you into an eggplant and send you scurrying back through several dangerous rooms to get restored? Or a tank simulator? An aerial dogfight simulator? How about just Pitfall?

Yes, it was an era that cranked out some pretty horrible titles such as the E.T. the Extra Terrestrial game. But it at least warned us that games made from movies were generally going to be awful. The thing is, because the graphics were simple and the sound poor...the games had to be fun! A bad premise couldn't be coated in good graphics and hidden. So it had to really be made well from the ground up.

As for "people calling most new games bad", I don't think that is really so. But people are a bit jaded from seeing over-hyped games and ones that look promising and then play poorly. And let's face it, we've gotten pickier over time. We really DO expect A LOT out of a game these days! But if people really hated new games, we wouldn't see so many being released. We still buy them in hordes. So if we treat new releases snarkily, well, it's just trendy. It doesn't stop us from running out and snagging the very latest titles and acting like Gollum with his "precious"!

I'm actually excited about a lot of releases promised between this year and the next. But you may have a point that we shouldn't carve everything up before it's had a chance to be tried. We can be discerning without being cruel. I still like Yahtzee's reviews because he won't gush in syrupy tones about a bad game and he DOES list both the good and bad points of games in his reviews. I find his reviews to be a great balancer to the myrid of companies that never give any game below 3 stars. But he does his shredding with a clear aim, he uses a scalpel not a hack-saw. The rest of us...perhaps not. The best way to change the trend, if there is strongly one, is to post more in a gentler voice. If it doesn't seem trendy to rip apart new games, people will do it less. I suppose that is the point of your post?

 

[LeonLethality]

You were born in 1992. Did you even get to play an Atari or NES? We didn't think most games were bad back then. In actuality, it was great to get ANY new game. And it was a period of experimentation. Have you played as a chef trying to put together cakes with icing and a cherry on top with a conveyor belt that was continuously speeding up? How about an RPG where your enemies could turn you into an eggplant and send you scurrying back through several dangerous rooms to get restored? Or a tank simulator? An aerial dogfight simulator? How about just Pitfall?

I may have been born in 1992 but I had many old consoles (my dad was a game I guess thats where I got it from)and I played a lot of old games and lots of them were pretty bad (bear in mind at that time I had not played an n64 or a ps1 or any of the new consoles it wasnt until 2001 that I started getting caught up and by 2003 I was completeley caught up) so I think I would havea right besides I know there were many good games but there were some truly TRULY bad games (like the pitfall sequel)

 

[daconcon]

[/quote]

I may have been born in 1992 but I had many old consoles (my dad was a game I guess thats where I got it from)[/quote]

you're half game?

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

It strikes me as slightly unfair to compare old games to new ones. It's like comparing a model T Ford against a shitty little korean car. The korean car is shit, but compared to a Model T Ford of course it's going to look good.

 

[Bofus Teefus]

New games suck? Oh hail no! In this order, I've gone through Atari 2600, C64, NES, SNES, PS, PS2, and 360. I'd have to say that if, with Fallout 3, L4D, Orange Box, and Mass Effect were the only games out for the 360, this gen would still be my favorite...except maybe SNES...many of the games that came out for it are solid gold.

Sorry, most games were crap prior to SNES, and they've only improved since then. Don't get me wrong, though- they were damn fun for their time, and I still do pick up the old systems and play.

 

[Kajt]

Like most things, it's a matter of opinion.

 

[tsolless]

Nostalgia is why everyone thinks the older games were better. On the whole, they weren't. The average old school game was worse than the average modern day game. They really were. Oh, of course there were some glorious gems, but still.

 

[Merteg]

What, you thought Custer's Revenge was bad? I loved that game!

Yeah, I know, crappy games on crappy systems is what brought about the Great Crash.

 

[dennyaaa]

I think it's because games are released more seldom these days, so that our expectations is sky high. Sure there was a lot of crap games on the older systems, but the good games was released so frequently, that no one cared about the bad games...

 

[MR.Spartacus]

You do realize that there are bad games in every generation right? The 64 had turds like Carmageddon and Superman, the PS2 had Fallout:Bos, The PS3 has Burnout Paradise and Haze, and the 360 has Too Human plus a myriad of other horrible games on other consoles that have been for the most part forgotten. And there are still plenty of great and mediocre games for all of them too!

 

[squid5580]

Pick yourself up a copy of GI Joe Rise of the Cobra and Terminator Salvation and then see if you still believe bad games don't exist.

 

[Sipo]

hey there were some great games on the NES...but i get wat ur saying =P

 

[Gyrefalcon]

Remember that the early games are trailblazers. There are things that did work and there are things that didn't. You won't see many games with unpausable timed sequesnces, and for awhile long games that had saves learned to put the "load" option above the "new game" option. Don't ask me why that trend has been reversing, as the "load" screen first was a big boost.

But until these things were tried no one knew how they would be received. And some of the ideas were cool! A scratch and sniff card that went with the game for identifying enemies? A game where you HAD to make a copy and save aside the master copy because your actions in the game would permanently change the game? There were some pretty wild ideas! And they were all innovative.

Oh-and games often had endings that were actually worthwhile! Not cliff-hangers or a really lame "roll the credits". Frankly, the credits should just be accessible under a sub-menu. Very few gamers care about that when there is a GAME to be had! The games wrapped up any story components and tell you how you stopped the great evil or saved the day. After beating the really hard final boss there was a reward-and it was long and FINAL. There wasn't a bunch of questions left unanswered to lure you to a might-never-get-made sequel.

And then there were the bad ones. They were learning experiences as to what NOT try again. But generally, game developers strove to remove the bad effects and improve the games. Of course, over time new problems arise. So it is always a learning process.

 

[Christemo]

there has been a few turds this year already.

examples of good games this year: Prototype, X-men Origins, Infamous, Splosion Man, Trine.
examples of shit games this year: G.I Joe, Damnation, Necrovision, Dawn of War 2.

 

[Christemo]

Pick yourself up a copy of GI Joe Rise of the Cobra and Terminator Salvation and then see if you still believe bad games don't exist.

add Damnation and Necrovision to that pile. he wont survive all that without yelling "what a shitty game" once.