Jimquisition: Joy Begets Anger
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
I can certainly agree that on the surface, taking offense at someone else enjoying something seems pretty damn stupid, and in many cases, it is pretty damn stupid. However, as Jim pointed out, there is the concern that too many people having low standards and being satisfied with games that most would agree are poor quality, designed based on the responses of focus-tested groups will lead to the industry never developing anything better. I'm confused, though, at how he then turns right around and says "don't blame people for liking it, blame the developers for making games like that." Well...if people keep eating up the lazily made, cheaply produced games that were made just to check off a list of desired features from a focus group...why should developers bother doing otherwise? Why should developers shift money from the easy-to-produce, lowest-common-denominator shooters, god games, RPGs and the like and put it into ones that are innovative, different, take risks and try altering the formulas that have become almost industry standards? Remember that these days, sadly, mainstream game developers' primary goal isn't to provide a quality product to benefit its customers...its to get the consumers' money as fast as they can, however they can.
I'm not saying that throwing petulant tantrums and raging on the internet over positive reviews is a good thing; it's not. However, I think perhaps some of the more mature people who are looking at the big picture, and seeing an industry being steered by lot of people with low standards, do have a right to not be all that pleased.
I'm not saying that throwing petulant tantrums and raging on the internet over positive reviews is a good thing; it's not. However, I think perhaps some of the more mature people who are looking at the big picture, and seeing an industry being steered by lot of people with low standards, do have a right to not be all that pleased.
Nailed it Jim. How I wish I could simply voice my love for Mass Effect 3 without 14 people chiming in and telling me how the game was bad and failed to meet their expectations and how I am an idiot for actually liking it I really do wish I didn't have to love that game in silence but that?s the reality of the matter.
I won?t lie though I am guilty of doing this from time to time and the main reason behind it is when it involves the implementation of one of the modern pandemics circulating through the gaming industry which leads to anticonsumer policies being where they have no business being. Or the watering down of franchises to broaden their appeal
And witnessing it all actually work!
but then again now that I think about it, my anger has never really been directed at the consumer(okay the Xbone) it almost always been directed at the product and people behind the product. That is of course unless someone provoked me. The only time I have ever gotten into a confrontation over something along the lines of this subject is if I have been attacked and have needed to defend my opinion on the subject, but I seldom ever resort to name calling or try to force my opinion onto someone else. I?ve never called someone an idiot for thinking Kratos is the greatest gaming protagonist that has and ever will be. Or damned a fan of Gears of War for thinking the series is one of the greatest stories to have ever been told in gaming.
Treat thy neighbor as thyself right?
I mean heh, wouldn?t want someone ranting at me trying to shove reasons down my throat for why I shouldn?t like Bioshock Infinite and how I am just a filthy spoiled moronic modern gamer(89) who can?t appreciate the more complex System Shock 2. oh wait that does happen...
I won?t lie though I am guilty of doing this from time to time and the main reason behind it is when it involves the implementation of one of the modern pandemics circulating through the gaming industry which leads to anticonsumer policies being where they have no business being. Or the watering down of franchises to broaden their appeal
And witnessing it all actually work!
but then again now that I think about it, my anger has never really been directed at the consumer(okay the Xbone) it almost always been directed at the product and people behind the product. That is of course unless someone provoked me. The only time I have ever gotten into a confrontation over something along the lines of this subject is if I have been attacked and have needed to defend my opinion on the subject, but I seldom ever resort to name calling or try to force my opinion onto someone else. I?ve never called someone an idiot for thinking Kratos is the greatest gaming protagonist that has and ever will be. Or damned a fan of Gears of War for thinking the series is one of the greatest stories to have ever been told in gaming.
Treat thy neighbor as thyself right?
I mean heh, wouldn?t want someone ranting at me trying to shove reasons down my throat for why I shouldn?t like Bioshock Infinite and how I am just a filthy spoiled moronic modern gamer(89) who can?t appreciate the more complex System Shock 2. oh wait that does happen...
Can't say I don't know how that feels. Whenever a new Pokemon game come out, there is always that very vocal, and very annoying group of "original fans" that always need to vent and rage about how Pokemon can continue to be a thing after 14 years or how the new Pokemon are always stupid looking and nobody can like the new ones.
Or perhaps for some of the meaner ones, how we can be such sheep for essentially buying the same game with a shit story, when for many Pokemon fans it's hardly about "story"(not saying there aren't those who don't enjoy it or anything)
I had one person give me a bit of shit because I said I loved generation 5 of Pokemon. She had a sneer on her face, like she couldn't even begin to believe what she was hearing. The best part when she asked to look at my sketchbook, she saw a variety of monsters that she thought looked really fucking cool. Didn't want to break it to her that most of those "cool" monsters were actually doodles from generation 5 itself, and the only thing she even knew about Pokemon Black and White was trubbish and Garbodor.
Same thing with CoD. I never understood why that game is consistently blamed for "ruining" gaming. How does a single game ruin the games industry?
Nobody told anyone to make their games CoD clones. If you hated how X game became a CoD clone, than send that angry letter to X games dev. Not CoD's dev studio for being a bunch of unwashed ticks.
Or perhaps for some of the meaner ones, how we can be such sheep for essentially buying the same game with a shit story, when for many Pokemon fans it's hardly about "story"(not saying there aren't those who don't enjoy it or anything)
I had one person give me a bit of shit because I said I loved generation 5 of Pokemon. She had a sneer on her face, like she couldn't even begin to believe what she was hearing. The best part when she asked to look at my sketchbook, she saw a variety of monsters that she thought looked really fucking cool. Didn't want to break it to her that most of those "cool" monsters were actually doodles from generation 5 itself, and the only thing she even knew about Pokemon Black and White was trubbish and Garbodor.
Same thing with CoD. I never understood why that game is consistently blamed for "ruining" gaming. How does a single game ruin the games industry?
Nobody told anyone to make their games CoD clones. If you hated how X game became a CoD clone, than send that angry letter to X games dev. Not CoD's dev studio for being a bunch of unwashed ticks.
Well, this is a complex debate in my point of view.
Thank you very much Jim for this video, that covers all the main points
(I was already typing a comment when you were answering it in the video
)
However, there is (and this is mainly covered in the video) one element I think is major. Whether the point of view is Macro or Micro. Sometime, I would like a music album in a Micro level, like "yes, this is an album that has a great atmosphere, that makes me want to dance, or whatever". But in a Macro level, in comparison with other album from the same artist, I would be disappointed ; like "the quality is so not what it has once been".
And I think that this is, not a positive feeling, but still a sign of "love" in a way. This is because I "love" an artist that I want to be able to send a signal like "well... this is ok but be careful". And having everyone judging the album on a "micro" level, like "oh yes, this is a good album actually !" can create a "fear" feeling.
There is an interview of Matthew Herbert when he was "Radio Boy". He said something like "Bjork made me listen to her album, and I told her this is a very bad album ; and then she redid everything before releasing it"; and he added "you have to be a very bad friend if you don't make people aware of their mistake".
(it was about the album "Vespertine" for the curious).
What I try to say is that I am sure the album was already a good one ; no doubt, Bjork is a talented artist. But sometime you don't want people that would listen to this album just once their all life, to say "Wow, what a wonderful album !!!" (the "wow" effect) and just drop the album the second after, and never give a sh** about it anymore ; while you committed so much for the artist yourself, listening to albums again and again and again, grabbing the essence of it ; and knowing, in the bigger context, the macro one, that something is going wrong.
This doesn't justify any "rage" or any "insulting" behavior ; but I think this is important to acknowledge that some people can be "angry" because they "love", not just because they "hate". Because they "care" about an "art" they are afraid of being destroyed. The debate can be about the legitimity of judging other people "point of view" ; and yes, there is kind of a condescending tone in this way of thinking. But I just wanted to point out this possibility too.
Thank you very much Jim for this video, that covers all the main points
(I was already typing a comment when you were answering it in the video
)However, there is (and this is mainly covered in the video) one element I think is major. Whether the point of view is Macro or Micro. Sometime, I would like a music album in a Micro level, like "yes, this is an album that has a great atmosphere, that makes me want to dance, or whatever". But in a Macro level, in comparison with other album from the same artist, I would be disappointed ; like "the quality is so not what it has once been".
And I think that this is, not a positive feeling, but still a sign of "love" in a way. This is because I "love" an artist that I want to be able to send a signal like "well... this is ok but be careful". And having everyone judging the album on a "micro" level, like "oh yes, this is a good album actually !" can create a "fear" feeling.
There is an interview of Matthew Herbert when he was "Radio Boy". He said something like "Bjork made me listen to her album, and I told her this is a very bad album ; and then she redid everything before releasing it"; and he added "you have to be a very bad friend if you don't make people aware of their mistake".
(it was about the album "Vespertine" for the curious).
What I try to say is that I am sure the album was already a good one ; no doubt, Bjork is a talented artist. But sometime you don't want people that would listen to this album just once their all life, to say "Wow, what a wonderful album !!!" (the "wow" effect) and just drop the album the second after, and never give a sh** about it anymore ; while you committed so much for the artist yourself, listening to albums again and again and again, grabbing the essence of it ; and knowing, in the bigger context, the macro one, that something is going wrong.
This doesn't justify any "rage" or any "insulting" behavior ; but I think this is important to acknowledge that some people can be "angry" because they "love", not just because they "hate". Because they "care" about an "art" they are afraid of being destroyed. The debate can be about the legitimity of judging other people "point of view" ; and yes, there is kind of a condescending tone in this way of thinking. But I just wanted to point out this possibility too.
The new DmC was a really solid title that was a lot of fun to play. It's not like it doesn't have problems, but the series it was spawned from also had a multitude of issues, not the least of which being a protagonist with major personality inconsistencies. The original series was decent, but I'd be hard pressed to put any of them into a top 20 list of best games I've ever played. That said, I was completely taken aback by the outlandish amount of hate leveled at this game. I even had a person in the real world ask me my opinion of the game and then verbally attack me for saying I enjoyed it.
Whatever happened to the phrase "to each their own?" I also enjoyed Mass Effect 3, it's multiplayer component, and didn't care at all about the ending everyone whined about for half a year later. You have every right to like or dislike something, but the instant you start attacking me personally for my tastes in games is when you start making an ass of yourself. No one has the right to tell me what I can and cannot like. If you want to sneer and say something like "well if you want to like a shit game, that's fine with me," even that is better than getting in my face over a reboot that neither one of us has any say in.
Whatever happened to the phrase "to each their own?" I also enjoyed Mass Effect 3, it's multiplayer component, and didn't care at all about the ending everyone whined about for half a year later. You have every right to like or dislike something, but the instant you start attacking me personally for my tastes in games is when you start making an ass of yourself. No one has the right to tell me what I can and cannot like. If you want to sneer and say something like "well if you want to like a shit game, that's fine with me," even that is better than getting in my face over a reboot that neither one of us has any say in.
I'd like to think it's just a phase some people go through. It's called the 'self-righteous teenage boy syndrome' and it's not a pretty sight. I can talk from bitter experience since I am a past sufferer. Albeit, it was for music and not games. I am not proud of this fact and I am glad that I have grown out of it. Though I will say in my defence that music is a far more communal experience than games.
The thing about games is that if someone likes playing a game that you don't particularly care for, it is hardly going to affect you. Just as Jim Sterling said in his video. With music, it is slightly different. If some individual chose to play out loud something that you dislike, you may be able to go to another room. Or maybe you don't have that luxury; and it is quite possible that this is where the arguments start. TV is similar example to this.
The thing about games is that if someone likes playing a game that you don't particularly care for, it is hardly going to affect you. Just as Jim Sterling said in his video. With music, it is slightly different. If some individual chose to play out loud something that you dislike, you may be able to go to another room. Or maybe you don't have that luxury; and it is quite possible that this is where the arguments start. TV is similar example to this.
Admittingly, yes you cannot have an objective game review. When it comes to DA2 however there are objectively BAD things in it. These aren't small things either some of them are big examples of bad game and story design. You can like the characters in DA2, I didn't, but thats subjective and give room for interesting discussions that's fine. You may not mind that your character from origins is almost never mentioned, thats ok. YOu may not mind the changes to the gameplay that made DA2 less tactical, thats just some people liking action more than having to pause and work it out.CitySquirrel said:
When the seemingly permanent choices you make in origins just get ignored? Thats bad. If Alister dies in origins hes just back no explanation no nothing just the developers going well we want this character to live more so.. hes back. When siding with either the templars or mages makes no difference what so ever. Thats also BAD. whats the point of picking sides, i mean this game is supposed to be heavily focussed on the story and the choices you make, but in the end it doesnt matter. Even then, if you could forgive those two things there is one BIG BAD HOLE in the game. the "dungeons" all of them were cut from a larger map with some sections opened and others closed, but in the end they were all the same. You just keep going through the same cave or manor over and over again. Its like playing the first two levels of super mario world and only having minor changes to the background. The first 2-3 times going through them is ok then it gets tremendously tedious. ITs less of an adventure and more of a treadmill at that point.
Its ok to like DA2 and ill defend anyone who does, BUT to give it a perfect score when there are actually bad things in the games design, that shouldnt be defended. Nothing against Greg Tito, I wasnt one of the people who jumped down his throat for his review. The review did irk me somewhat and it really felt that his bias towards dragon age itself blinded him in his review.
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:
....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.