I'm sorry, the Witcher 2 is better than Dragon Age 2? Please explain to me how that is anything more than your personal opinion.Bors Mistral said:
Jimquisition: Joy Begets Anger
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
....Because if people buy a game that is broken, the developers will automatically make the next game even more broken? I don't buy that, you do know that EA is in massive trouble for the shoddy work they did with BF4 right? As in, they're getting sued by their shareholders for screwing the pooch so bad. Call me crazy, I don't think they're in a rush to repeat the same process. Also, please don't be so abusive to people who don't conform to the same opinion as you, it's not very civil.xPixelatedx said:
I think that this video kind of ignores the seedy underbelly of the games industry, games that are so sexist, racist or otherwise deplorable that the only reasonable course of action ~is~ to take offence at someone liking them.
If someone admits to liking some kind of hentai game where you're encouraged to rape your own relatives repeatedly, or a game where you're encouraged to shoot all black people within the game world, is the sensible response really "Oh that's nice, good for you"? Would I really be wrong to get in their face about their unhealthy kinks? Or at the least kindly ask them never to mention those games in my presence ever again?
If someone admits to liking some kind of hentai game where you're encouraged to rape your own relatives repeatedly, or a game where you're encouraged to shoot all black people within the game world, is the sensible response really "Oh that's nice, good for you"? Would I really be wrong to get in their face about their unhealthy kinks? Or at the least kindly ask them never to mention those games in my presence ever again?
I find myself displeased when a reviewer gives something a positive score that ends up being really bad. For example, if someone rated Colonial Marines highly and then I skipped down to the store and purchased it, I would be upset. Not livid, mind you, but displeased.
A real example is actually your own reviews. Jim, you tend to share an affection of games I typically like. As such, if you score a game highly, I give that more weight than other reviewers who may be hit or miss. This is the point of reviewers as I see them. A sort of curation that point the less informed in the right direction. As such, when you gave Ridiculous Fishing a game of the year award, I immediately ran out and bought it (aka, downloaded it while sitting on my ass). It was fun, I enjoyed the game, but game of the year? Nah. So it provoked (mildly) me to post in that thread that this game was merely ok. It was a good purchase for the money and would last you a few hours. But it's incredibly short and shallow when compared to any other number of games that could have gone in its place (tearaway, for example, a video you seemed to love).
You're right, the livid anger doesn't make sense. But I certainly understand feeling mildly let down when a reviewer you trust advocates something that you spend money on and dislike. Perhaps if I had hated ridiculous fishing, or maybe if it was $60?
At least someone saying that a game or movie is bad isn't wasting my time/money.
A real example is actually your own reviews. Jim, you tend to share an affection of games I typically like. As such, if you score a game highly, I give that more weight than other reviewers who may be hit or miss. This is the point of reviewers as I see them. A sort of curation that point the less informed in the right direction. As such, when you gave Ridiculous Fishing a game of the year award, I immediately ran out and bought it (aka, downloaded it while sitting on my ass). It was fun, I enjoyed the game, but game of the year? Nah. So it provoked (mildly) me to post in that thread that this game was merely ok. It was a good purchase for the money and would last you a few hours. But it's incredibly short and shallow when compared to any other number of games that could have gone in its place (tearaway, for example, a video you seemed to love).
You're right, the livid anger doesn't make sense. But I certainly understand feeling mildly let down when a reviewer you trust advocates something that you spend money on and dislike. Perhaps if I had hated ridiculous fishing, or maybe if it was $60?
At least someone saying that a game or movie is bad isn't wasting my time/money.
The only one there that I disliked out what you mentioned was 'Gone Home', even then I don't hate the game or those who like. I hate those who call it deep and meaningful, mostly because I cannot see it. It's like how critics loved 'A Painted Bird'; I just get the feeling we've seen to completely different things. If there is an obvious flaw with a produce, they need to tell us.
*headdesks*
This is the problem with this world. Where having ANY sort of opinion whatsoever makes you a target. Even if your opinion doesn't hurt others directly.
It would appear that game review has now become the latest target of polarization...just like either politics or religion. Almost makes me wonder how Ayn Rand would have responded to it in regards to her views on Objectivism. (This coming from a guy curious enough to wonder how she would have responded to Bioshock itself.)
This is the problem with this world. Where having ANY sort of opinion whatsoever makes you a target. Even if your opinion doesn't hurt others directly.
It would appear that game review has now become the latest target of polarization...just like either politics or religion. Almost makes me wonder how Ayn Rand would have responded to it in regards to her views on Objectivism. (This coming from a guy curious enough to wonder how she would have responded to Bioshock itself.)
This makes me happy I tend to not read the comments for reviews, as I have a low tolerance level for this kind of retarded thought process
also, fuck what other people say, DmC was good.
also, fuck what other people say, DmC was good.
Because Battlefield 4 being broken and people buying it makes it so that no other future games can have quality or variety ever again. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, that doesn't make someone any less of a dick for claiming people are stupid for liking or disliking any piece of media that's perfectly in their right to like or dislike.xPixelatedx said:
The Ancestral Trail, have you read it!? The images you were using would suggest so? Sorry this is off topic, but it excites me knowing I might now be the only person who has read them, I've yet to meet anyone else who has.Jimothy Sterling said:
Buh? I've only seen part of a walkthrough for Witcher 2 and even I can tell you the game appears to play smoother, has a complex/grand story line, doesn't follow a Tolkeinesque fantasy guide line, and has a more pleasing aesthetic. I mean, like I said, only part of a walkthrough, so there's no guarantee that those remain true, but I'm sure that Witcher 2 doesn't put you in the same cave five times and asks you to pretend they're different caves.erttheking said:
I guess that's the crux of that kind of issue. Those people who ***** about the new games don't actually play them, so they aren't worth listening to. Meanwhile, those who do play them sing their praises to the high heavens.Dragonbums said:
I didn't like Diamond and Pearl myself. (That's gen 5 right? I get gen numbers confused, sorry.) I know the story for pokemon was never the highest priority, but I did feel like it was perpetuating the stereotype that all pokemon games are the same, at least as far as story goes. That's why I preferred Black and White, when the main villian actually remains a threat until the very end of the game and comes so close to achieving his goal.
...that being said, Turtwig is pretty much one of my favorite pokemon now, and I liked a lot of pokemon that came out of that game, Arceus and Giritina especially. Shit, I even like the ice cream pokemon and garbodor.
OT: The reasons this is a thing vary. For me, I dislike things like DmC or Metroid: Other M not exactly because the quality of the game is to a higher or lower standard (though I'd argue they're both waaaaaay lower) but because they're a prediction of things to come. A lot of people are now upset because the old Dante/Samus they loved might not ever come back.
So in struts the reviewers calling the game good (in the case of DmC anyway) and encouraging everyone to play what the fans perceive to be a bastardization of a series they enjoyed. It certainly doesn't help when the quality of the game takes a dive along with it. I mean, that was what most people complained about with DmC: the unnecessary reboot and the lack of quality.
And everyone else already covered objective versus subjective opinions in reviews, so I won't get into that.
Hmm. Something to think about in this episode.
Although I cannot agree more with the bit at the end that it's not my job to buy games other people want to see more of and not buy games they don't want to see more of. Screw off, people who think like that, I buy the games I want to play and don't buy the games I don't want to play.
Wii U owners seem to do it a lot (or rather, I encounter a lot of them who hold this attitude). Telling people they should buy Need For Speed 2012 Edition (I can't keep track of the titles anymore, it's far too milked and they keep reusing old titles to boot) on Wii U so EA will support the Wii U. Telling people they should buy Rayman Legends, AssCreed IV, and Watch Dogs on Wii U so Ubisoft will support the Wii U. No. I absolutely will not do that. I both hate EA's business practices and have no love for Need for Speed, so I'm not buying a game I don't want from a publisher I despise just so they might put more games on Wii U. As for Ubisoft's games, if I actually wanted any of those three games (as of now, I don't), they are multiplatform. I'm not going to limit myself to the Wii U version when I could get superior versions for my PS4 or better yet, my PC, just because you want more Ubisoft multiplats on Wii U. If Ubisoft puts out a game I want to play that's exclusive to Wii U, then I'll get it for the Wii U. Until then, I don't only own a Wii U so I'm going to buy whatever version of the game I think will be best.
Oh, and I'm not buying Bayonetta 2 either. I never asked for Bayonetta 2. I don't want to play Bayonetta 2. I'm not going to buy it anyway just so Nintendo might think about bringing in more third party exclusives (they should already be trying to do that anyway, and it's not my fault if they have no business sense).
Also the controls were fairly rubbished too. I don't know why so many third person games feel the need to cluster as many options as they can onto one button but it's really annoying. Take cover and dodge roll should never be mapped to the same button, it just makes things frustrating when you want to roll away from an enemy and Shepard glues himself to a wall right next to said enemy, or when you want to take cover behind something and Shepard starts rolling instead. Uncharted is also guilty of this. And The Last of Us, did you really need to map so much stuff to triangle? I don't really enjoy when I'm playing online and I can't pick between interrogating a downed enemy or reviving a downed teammate, nor do I enjoy having an enemy escape my shiv attempt because a supply box came into range immediately after the "shiv" prompt appeared on screen.
On the subject of Pokemanz, I always love when people complain about the new designs being "bad" and "uncreative" while forgetting how many bad and uncreative designs gen 1 had. Sticking three Diglets together to make a new Pokemon isn't creative, nor was sticking three Magnemites together. Having a pile of sludge evolve into a bigger pile of sludge isn't fantastic either. And what makes a living pile of sludge any better than a living bag of garbage anyway? If Grimer was gen 5 and Garbodor was gen 1, people would probably be talking about how lame Grimer is instead. Gen 2 wasn't very creative either, they just put a bunch of regular animals in there and maybe changed something minor if you're lucky (Noctowl is just an owl, Sentret is just a ferret, Miltank is just a cow, Stantler is just a deer but he has psychic horns wow. why it this praised as good design but newer designs shat on?).
Although I cannot agree more with the bit at the end that it's not my job to buy games other people want to see more of and not buy games they don't want to see more of. Screw off, people who think like that, I buy the games I want to play and don't buy the games I don't want to play.
Wii U owners seem to do it a lot (or rather, I encounter a lot of them who hold this attitude). Telling people they should buy Need For Speed 2012 Edition (I can't keep track of the titles anymore, it's far too milked and they keep reusing old titles to boot) on Wii U so EA will support the Wii U. Telling people they should buy Rayman Legends, AssCreed IV, and Watch Dogs on Wii U so Ubisoft will support the Wii U. No. I absolutely will not do that. I both hate EA's business practices and have no love for Need for Speed, so I'm not buying a game I don't want from a publisher I despise just so they might put more games on Wii U. As for Ubisoft's games, if I actually wanted any of those three games (as of now, I don't), they are multiplatform. I'm not going to limit myself to the Wii U version when I could get superior versions for my PS4 or better yet, my PC, just because you want more Ubisoft multiplats on Wii U. If Ubisoft puts out a game I want to play that's exclusive to Wii U, then I'll get it for the Wii U. Until then, I don't only own a Wii U so I'm going to buy whatever version of the game I think will be best.
Oh, and I'm not buying Bayonetta 2 either. I never asked for Bayonetta 2. I don't want to play Bayonetta 2. I'm not going to buy it anyway just so Nintendo might think about bringing in more third party exclusives (they should already be trying to do that anyway, and it's not my fault if they have no business sense).
What's pathetic about people being upset that a developer blatantly lied to their faces? I've sat through plenty of bad endings, but none pissed me off more than Mass Effect 3. It was all the things BioWare (mostly Casey Hudson) told us it wouldn't be.xNicolex said:
Also the controls were fairly rubbished too. I don't know why so many third person games feel the need to cluster as many options as they can onto one button but it's really annoying. Take cover and dodge roll should never be mapped to the same button, it just makes things frustrating when you want to roll away from an enemy and Shepard glues himself to a wall right next to said enemy, or when you want to take cover behind something and Shepard starts rolling instead. Uncharted is also guilty of this. And The Last of Us, did you really need to map so much stuff to triangle? I don't really enjoy when I'm playing online and I can't pick between interrogating a downed enemy or reviving a downed teammate, nor do I enjoy having an enemy escape my shiv attempt because a supply box came into range immediately after the "shiv" prompt appeared on screen.
They're gen 4.SilverBullets000 said:
On the subject of Pokemanz, I always love when people complain about the new designs being "bad" and "uncreative" while forgetting how many bad and uncreative designs gen 1 had. Sticking three Diglets together to make a new Pokemon isn't creative, nor was sticking three Magnemites together. Having a pile of sludge evolve into a bigger pile of sludge isn't fantastic either. And what makes a living pile of sludge any better than a living bag of garbage anyway? If Grimer was gen 5 and Garbodor was gen 1, people would probably be talking about how lame Grimer is instead. Gen 2 wasn't very creative either, they just put a bunch of regular animals in there and maybe changed something minor if you're lucky (Noctowl is just an owl, Sentret is just a ferret, Miltank is just a cow, Stantler is just a deer but he has psychic horns wow. why it this praised as good design but newer designs shat on?).
Ugh... I suppose I'm one of the people aimed at here. Although I don't think I've ever spewed bile.
Jim, if someone disagrees with your opinion of a game then you're free to ignore it. You shouldn't have to deal with anger and bile. To that extent I agree with you.
HOWEVER, what I think you are maybe neglecting to take into account here is that you're a professional games reviewer. You're not just some guy on the Internet. People, both gamers (I hate that title but let's use it for now) and games DEVELOPERS, look to you for guidance on how to spend their money or what they can improve about their work. That's one heck of a responsibility that you have there.
As a professional games reviewer, your job is to CRITICISE. When you don't do that, you are doing a disservice to your readers. I've seen other professional reviewers point out some of the problems I've had with this game, while still giving it a "9" or a "10" (thereby proving, once again, that review scores are inherently worthless). Again, it's completely worthless to "rate" somebody else's subjective experience. The point of a review, in my opinion, is to give its readers enough info that they'd be able to assess, with at least a certain amount of accuracy, whether the game is for them - whether they'd have a good subjective experience of their own with it.
And if that's the task that reviewers have, then in this instance a LOT of them have failed with me. Angry Joe, for example, pointed out some of the problems that I have with the game - the fact that the two-weapon system makes the weapon-upgrade system completely redundant, since you never know which weapons you'll have access to, for example - but basically said "Even if this bothers you, you'll still love the game." Well, I didn't.
I don't begrudge you your enjoyment of the game - in fact, I wish I'd shared it. But the fact remains, I wasted £45 on this game - not a huge amount of money for me, but still something that I could've put to much better use - which has, in my opinion, zero replayability. It's just too linear and there's too much combat, with enemies I didn't care for, using mechanics that had plenty of problems with them. I spent an equivalent amount of money on "Skyrim" - a game that also has a lot of flaws - but I've had over two hundred hours' worth of playtime on "Skyrim". And by and large they've been more worthwhile than those I've spent on "Bioshock Infinite". That's my subjective experience, but it's caused in part by objective flaws in the game's design.
My problem with the acclaim this game is getting is that I feel that it will encourage the developers to go further down the road that they've gone down here. Which, to me, is making a generic FPS with boring combat, but set in a hugely impressive world with a very good story. I feel - and a lot of people obviously agree with me - that "Bioshock Infinite" is a huge step back for Ken Levine. On a philosophical level, Levine's games are no longer about "making your own story". Instead I'm watching someone else's - Booker DeWitt's, in this case - and while it's a really, really good story, it's not one that I ever felt that I could or did influence in any way. I felt that the game was trying to be a movie, and I was a passive observer to it. That to me is not what makes a great game, and it's not the direction I want to see this particular developer's games take.
Almost twenty years ago, Ken Levine made my absolute all-time favorite game. I KNOW he's better than this.
But again... a lot of that is subjective. Not all of it though. When a game has problems, the professional reviewers should let the gaming community know about it so that they can decide whether or not the game is a worthwhile purchase. They should also let the developers know about it so that they can take that information into account when continuing to develop games. I just feel that the reviewers of "Bioshock Infinite" largely failed to do that here. And that's why I think that - while BILE is certainly not warranted - the criticisms are.
Jim, if someone disagrees with your opinion of a game then you're free to ignore it. You shouldn't have to deal with anger and bile. To that extent I agree with you.
HOWEVER, what I think you are maybe neglecting to take into account here is that you're a professional games reviewer. You're not just some guy on the Internet. People, both gamers (I hate that title but let's use it for now) and games DEVELOPERS, look to you for guidance on how to spend their money or what they can improve about their work. That's one heck of a responsibility that you have there.
As a professional games reviewer, your job is to CRITICISE. When you don't do that, you are doing a disservice to your readers. I've seen other professional reviewers point out some of the problems I've had with this game, while still giving it a "9" or a "10" (thereby proving, once again, that review scores are inherently worthless). Again, it's completely worthless to "rate" somebody else's subjective experience. The point of a review, in my opinion, is to give its readers enough info that they'd be able to assess, with at least a certain amount of accuracy, whether the game is for them - whether they'd have a good subjective experience of their own with it.
And if that's the task that reviewers have, then in this instance a LOT of them have failed with me. Angry Joe, for example, pointed out some of the problems that I have with the game - the fact that the two-weapon system makes the weapon-upgrade system completely redundant, since you never know which weapons you'll have access to, for example - but basically said "Even if this bothers you, you'll still love the game." Well, I didn't.
I don't begrudge you your enjoyment of the game - in fact, I wish I'd shared it. But the fact remains, I wasted £45 on this game - not a huge amount of money for me, but still something that I could've put to much better use - which has, in my opinion, zero replayability. It's just too linear and there's too much combat, with enemies I didn't care for, using mechanics that had plenty of problems with them. I spent an equivalent amount of money on "Skyrim" - a game that also has a lot of flaws - but I've had over two hundred hours' worth of playtime on "Skyrim". And by and large they've been more worthwhile than those I've spent on "Bioshock Infinite". That's my subjective experience, but it's caused in part by objective flaws in the game's design.
My problem with the acclaim this game is getting is that I feel that it will encourage the developers to go further down the road that they've gone down here. Which, to me, is making a generic FPS with boring combat, but set in a hugely impressive world with a very good story. I feel - and a lot of people obviously agree with me - that "Bioshock Infinite" is a huge step back for Ken Levine. On a philosophical level, Levine's games are no longer about "making your own story". Instead I'm watching someone else's - Booker DeWitt's, in this case - and while it's a really, really good story, it's not one that I ever felt that I could or did influence in any way. I felt that the game was trying to be a movie, and I was a passive observer to it. That to me is not what makes a great game, and it's not the direction I want to see this particular developer's games take.
Almost twenty years ago, Ken Levine made my absolute all-time favorite game. I KNOW he's better than this.
But again... a lot of that is subjective. Not all of it though. When a game has problems, the professional reviewers should let the gaming community know about it so that they can decide whether or not the game is a worthwhile purchase. They should also let the developers know about it so that they can take that information into account when continuing to develop games. I just feel that the reviewers of "Bioshock Infinite" largely failed to do that here. And that's why I think that - while BILE is certainly not warranted - the criticisms are.
I liked DMC gameplay. I was just sad that the story and aesthetics took the turn they did. Still, for $10 it was enjoyable enough. The color palette was my biggest problem aside from the story. It's very unpleasant to look at.
Well, the problem I see with your argument here is you are talking entire genres - and most gamers won't really buy genres they don't like and expect great things. Heck most gamers won't even read the reviews for niches that aren't theirs.CitySquirrel said:
But they will get annoyed if a game is highly reviewed that falls within a genre they like, and if it is touted as being their sort of thing.
So in real terms, they aren't complaining about getting served seafood when they order seafood.
Further games frequently are severely structurally flawed. Take say, The Sims 3 - on some computers that game requires a certain degree of computer literacy just to get it running, otherwise it will just boot you out in about ten minutes or so. It has a metacritic score of 86.
XCom Enemy Unknown, realise I like this game but if it was a restaurant it would be shut down it is so riddled with bugs. 89 on Metacritic. They still haven't fixed most of the old bugs as of Enemy Within, the expansion which got 86.
These are supposed to be good games in their genres, but even on a basic playability level there are serious problems.
I think to some extent the backlash positive reviews get is born of this sort of thing - where gamers who thought that a game was going to be just what they wanted find it sorely lacking, whether it is technical issues or the game just isn't as well thought out as it is billed as. To some extent their anger is an instinct to warn others.
Now the fact that it tends to be personal and not about attacking the work - is one of the things that really does need addressing. If we could keep anger tethered to what people are really angry at, which is generally products and ideas rather than actual people, this would be a much better world.
I don't think the anger itself is the problem - I think it is the tendency to ad hominem, to tie people up so closely to their ideas that you can't quite separate the two, and thus you take an attack on one as an attack on the other.
Oddly, in the cases that should inspire the most rage, this phenomenon doesn't happen. I tell people I liked Sonic '06, and people either laugh and assume I'm joking, or gather around like I'm some exotic daredevil telling a story about how I drank an entire bottle of hot sauce in 10 seconds.
Doesn't work isn't the same as not as advertised. If I am advertised that product A will do B/C/D and it does not actually do/contain C and D then the product is not what it is suppose to be.PortalThinker113 said:
You said you purchased the new aliens game correct? Well the game didn't contain a lot of what was advertised, not to mention it didn't work properly. If you bought a car and was told it contain a satellite radio and leather seats, then after receiving the car found the radio missing would you chalk it up to not liking cars without radios and move on?
There is a very real difference between subjective taste and false advertising. If I order a cheese burger and they forget the cheese I am not complaining that I don't like the taste of a burger without cheese. I am complaining that I ordered a cheese burger and I was given something different. That is my real disagreement with this Jim rant. If a game advertises something and doesn't deliver then we are all perfectly justified in complaining.
Cheers.
I like Naruto! (Only the good parts, not the filler.) Most people at this point roll their eyes.Raioken18 said:
The real blasphemy is if you admit to liking Bleach. Explosions occur.
People can like DmC all they want, the problem was by attempting to sell this rebooted title was, if it was successful, probably would have killed the original series in favor of putting funding into making "DmC2", which is why I think if DmC was a standalone game under a new.....everything, I would've given it more favor.
DmC as a new IP? would've been good.
DmC as an actual Devil May Cry title? it was trash to me.
But even then, I don't direct hate at people for liking it, I hate Capcom for letting it happen in the first place, because once again, Capcom prove they don't know how to deal with the West.
DmC as a new IP? would've been good.
DmC as an actual Devil May Cry title? it was trash to me.
But even then, I don't direct hate at people for liking it, I hate Capcom for letting it happen in the first place, because once again, Capcom prove they don't know how to deal with the West.
I don't think this is really a thing. Are there people online who shit on anything? Sure. Do most gamers get angry if someone liked a game they didn't care for? Bullshit.canadamus_prime said:
The DMC thing is an instance of a series hardcore fans being upset about a change in direction of their series. Even then there were plenty of reasonable and even positive voices as well.