Recurring game arguments you've noticed

[krazykidd]

Every damn time I see or make a thread about the new KH game, there's always SOMEBODY bitching about he doesn't like the series anymore and/or won't get it because it's no longer PS2/3-exclusive. Does that count?

Also, people complaining about the spinoffs (CoM, Days, BBS and Re:Coded) tend to dismiss them due to the fact that they're not KH3. What they tend to forget is that Word Of God has essentially said that KH3 will make no goddamn sense without the info from these games. That really ticks me off.

Just calm down, you zetta sons of digits! KH3 WILL come, I assure you!

Let me make a bet with you. I bet that half-life episode 4 will come out before Kingdom hearts 3

Spoiler

there will not be an episode 4.

OT: x game is better than y because it has better graphics . Every time i hear this argument,the gamer inside me dies a little .

 

[vidirg]

[

not necessarily some games have such good gameplay values that the graphics don't matter as much.
Like Minecraft it's probably one of the ugliest games I've played but it's still really fun.

MineCraft isn't ugly at all. Like... try playing Arena, and then compare.

When you walk up to a block in MineCraft, the straight lines on the textures are still smooth. When you walk up to a house in Arena, the pixels are the same size as they were from a distance.

It's an art style - graphics are more Half-Life [http://images.wikia.com/half-life/en/images/f/ff/Xen_first_teleport1.jpg] versus Half-Life 2 [http://www.wired.com/news/images/full/si_halflife2_05_lg_f.10459.jpg] than VVVVVV [http://www.gamersgate.com/img/screenshots/DDB-VVV/120652_vvvvvv_reckless_medium.jpg] versus Super Meat Boy. [http://cdn.steampowered.com/v/gfx/apps/40800/ss_652092068cc0d5e75fe3f199ad1bbc395806c1f2.1920x1080.jpg?t=1321661729]

And if MineCraft really is the ugliest game you've ever played... I feel for you, kid.

I'm not sure why minecraft came to mind I've played alot games old and new ones, I'm currently working on Half Life: source and Half Life 2 is probably my favorite game with Skyrim, AVP 2, Amnesia: the dark decent, Black and White 2 and Power Rangers for the SNES,
but I'm getting sidetracked, but my point actually was that graphics don't matter as much as gameplay.

 

[bluepanda 492]

"(game) tried to be realistic and failed"

Heard it argued in Team Fortress 2 about eight times now all from people who came from call of duty once the game went free to play.

 

[Veldt Falsetto]

"This game is ugly and brown and it needs more color."

Seriously, this is NOT true for every damn game. Not every game needs more color, the brown and grey muted colors work really well with the aesthetics of some games.

Horror games should never be super colorful, it completely takes away from their purpose. I also think that the first Gears of War had the best color aesthetics and Gears 2 and 3 ruined those aesthetics by adding color.

Come at me.

Tell you what game DOESN'T need more colour

The cover doesn't really show it but seriously, most colourful game going and I LOVE IT!

Not every game should be like this but this game uses colour so well and so few games do that maybe some more should

 

[sgtshock]

"(Game Name) would be a great game, except it has a bunch of issues that make it suck."

*(Game Name) 2 comes out, fixes those issues*

"(Game Name) 2 shouldn't have changed the formula; it sucks now, whereas (Game Name) 1 was a flawless classic."

I see this argument every time I hear someone complain that Mass Effect 2 should've kept the Mako, TF2 should have kept grenades, and Deus Ex: HR should have kept the clueless AI of its predecessor.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

I think the best response to most of the "arguments" being mentioned thus far is simply The Dude
snip

Isn't there a point where something can be objectively bad? I think people use the 'well that's your opinion' argument too much on these forums. You could just say that about everything and there would be no standards for anything ever.

'If someone said 'Well I like Big Rigs over the road racing and therefore it's just as good as Skyrim!'

for example...

Someone saying they like game X and that makes it as good as game Y is being silly. However, someone is perfectly entitled to say they like game X more than Y. Pretty much without fail, some person will like a given game mechanic or plot element that huge numbers of people dislike and I don't think that makes a game objectively bad. Bugs that crash the game randomly, story or puzzle elements with no discernible logic to them, and fake difficulty can make a bad game (in my opinion, of course). Preferring one game style to another does not make a game any better or worse objectively though.

 

[Red 3mu]

Oh, I have a whole bloody list.

- Regenerating health VS health packs.
- Bioware.
- "CoD sucks and is the devil" VS "CoD is fun, leave it alone!!!"
- Sonic.
- Nintendo.
- When and how can one justify piracy?
- Used games etc etc.
- Consoles, PC, dumbing down, blah-de-fucking-blah...

Yeah... ugh. And every time someone brings it up they appear to genuinely believe they're saying something that hasn't been said literally thousands of times before.

You obviously don't know what an argument is/haven't read the discussion title

 

[Charles McGuffin]

"The newest game is too much like the prequels." and "The new game is too different from the prequels."

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I think the best response to most of the "arguments" being mentioned thus far is simply The Dude
snip

Isn't there a point where something can be objectively bad? I think people use the 'well that's your opinion' argument too much on these forums. You could just say that about everything and there would be no standards for anything ever.

'If someone said 'Well I like Big Rigs over the road racing and therefore it's just as good as Skyrim!'

for example...

Someone saying they like game X and that makes it as good as game Y is being silly. However, someone is perfectly entitled to say they like game X more than Y. Pretty much without fail, some person will like a given game mechanic or plot element that huge numbers of people dislike and I don't think that makes a game objectively bad. Bugs that crash the game randomly, story or puzzle elements with no discernible logic to them, and fake difficulty can make a bad game (in my opinion, of course). Preferring one game style to another does not make a game any better or worse objectively though.

I just find it aggravating that it's practically impossible to have a discussion about the merits and failings of a game when someone just says well it doesn't matter because it's all subjective.

If that's true what's the point in discussing anything at all really. While I prefer Skyward's Sword's style of graphics over that of MW3, I would never say that it has better graphics because that's factually wrong.

It just gets on my nerves a bit.

 

[Dango]

Accessibility ruins games.

Because people don't understand there's a difference between making a game accessible and having a game with bad game design that holds your hand the whole time.

And I'll never really understand why Mass Effect 2 can be considered better than Mass Effect 1...

 

[mysecondlife]

When you're arguing about a game and you drag metacritic / review scores into it, you're automatically a prick.

 

[Hobonicus]

For me, this argument crops up on a near daily basis. The argument that PC Gamers are better than console gamers or the PC is better than anything else out there or that PC Gaming is inherently superior to everything else; not as a matter of preference but as if it is some written in stone conclusion that only silly people don't believe. In reality, it still just comes down to which do you like more.

I did read your whole post, and I would normally have points to make (like for example the often highly exaggerated prices; I'm on a $500 computer that outperforms every console) but this isn't the thread. Responding to your issue also leads into my own point, which is how console gamers tend misinterpret PC gamers' frustration towards consoles as personal hostility. While there certainly are PC gamers who will claim that they are personally better than a console player, they would do so regardless of topic or side.

The real issue comes when people try to intelligently and legitimately discuss the evolution of gaming being held back by console standards and others immediately get defensive and start declaring elitist oppression. No insult was made until "elitist", nobody says anything about you as a gamer until the console side decided that it's become a personal issue, as if they need to defend their purchase. So I hate to pull a "well you started it!" but it's kind of an unfair position to put someone in. I wish we could actually talk about these things without being destroyed by oversensitive knee-jerk reactions, so that games like the wonderful S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series can keep being made without the developers going out of business (which they have, if you haven't heard).

I don't mean any disrespect, you're obviously very mature about it, but I still think you've misinterpreted the point. "You're a bad gamer because you use a console" isn't the argument, it's the insult that comes from assholes who'd be an asshole anyway, and often in response to the cry of "elitist!" that comes first.

And the argument that I've noticed and always has pissed me off is

"Is (apple) better than (orange)?"

or more commonly

"(apple) is way better than (orange)!"

People comparing their current "FAVORIT GAM EVAH!" to a completely unrelated game that they don't like.
That argument just pisses me off for its sheer pointlessness.

I was actually thinking that another argument I hate is just deciding that an argument is not worth having by declaring "apples and oranges". Very rarely in these situations are the games compared actually like comparing apples and oranges. Too many people on this site refuse to compare anything subjectively so we end up with more posts telling the OP that he's wrong for trying to analyze two games than posts actually trying to intelligently find comparisons.

Why should we be discouraged from finding parallels between dissimilar games? Even when two games fall under a different genre (although I see most of the "apples and oranges" argument for games in the same genre with only slight differences) they can still have thematic elements in common, or similar mindsets. People should be allowed to compare these things when instead posters will restrict themselves to only comparing games that are intended to specifically mimic one another. And once you get to that state, what's the point in comparison?

 

[Joccaren]

For me, this argument crops up on a near daily basis. The argument that PC Gamers are better than console gamers or the PC is better than anything else out there or that PC Gaming is inherently superior to everything else; not as a matter of preference but as if it is some written in stone conclusion that only silly people don't believe. In reality, it still just comes down to which do you like more.

Honestly, a PC IS better than a console, but there are more things that factor into the choices that I'll get into later.

I'm a console gamer - and by that I mean that I prefer to use a controller over a keyboard and that's as far as the preference goes. I have a laptop with decent specs and I play a great deal of indie PC games, mods, and go out of my way to try and pick up some PC only exclusives.

That said, the ID that console gamers have a lesser gaming experience because they aren't PC gamers is hokum. First it assumes that the average console gamer has one console and no computer. Why? Because at the end of the day, you only need a designated gaming rig to play a small fraction of PC games and a lot of those are even multiplatform - you can argue which is the best experience but then it usually again comes down to preference (first over whether that particular game is even enjoyable).

Starting to get to the point, but I'll get to that later.

Second, with the exception of illegal activity (yes, yes torrents and such. I do it to, but when talking about which system is better, you can't really include stuff that's against the law because it's not a very far leap down the slippery slope to say "Well what if I rob a gamestop? Then I have games I'm not supposed to as well." It's a stupid argument yes, but the point is simply illegal activity is what you do with your system, not the experience it provides), in order to get the most out of PC gaming, you have to spend much more money than a console gamer would. If you have a really really good Gaming rig - like $1500-2000 - or even a pretty good one - $800-1200 often times, you can buy all three major consoles and several games for each; just for the price of the PC. If you buy a good gaming PC at the launch date of a console, they'll become useless at about the same time - average life of a console (at least this generation) 5-7 years. It doesn't lasts about the same amount of time and if you get all three consoles instead of the PC what you have is each access every exclusive that didn't get a PC port for each console (this year that includes LoZ, Uncharted 3, and Gears 3 among many others), a PC of your own to play low spec games, and the only major games you missed out on were RTSs, MMOs, and the occasional high graphics FPS.

Entirely mis-informed argument. This is the on argument I hate hearing, as it always underestimates the resourcefulness of PC gamers, and the ability to build your own rig.
Point in case: I recently upgraded my computer for $300. It already ran top of the line game on high settings with decent framerates, after the upgrade it ran all but BF3 on max settings with decent framerates. Now, even on lowest settings these games WILL look better than on a console (Resolution, and other effects added in by individual GPUs and forced AA and such), and I ran them higher than that for less than the cost of a new console. Admittedly, after that I went a bit over the top and spent $700 on two new GPUs and a PSU, but they were in no way required. My old PC was 6b years old, and ran things better than consoles even without the upgrade. When the new generation of consoles came out, it would likely play games on the same level as those consoles until the next generation. It all depends on how you build your rig.
How you get things so cheap is:
1. Buy the parts and build it yourself
2. Shop around before you buy the parts, and get the best efficiency lowest price part at the shop that sells it cheapest.
The next thing that comes up is "Not everyone knows how to build a computer". Now, lets be honest. Building a PC is not rocket science. In all honesty, it is akin to carefully assembling Lego. You simply plug the bits in to the place they belong, screw some of them in, but all the whilst being careful not to leave the power on or touch the chips of the individual parts. Hardest part is getting the parts that are compatible with each other, but there are many, MANY forums dedicated to that sort of thing.
It also helps that PC games, not including Steam, are often $10 cheaper than console games. Buy ten games for a PC instead of a console, and you've saved $100. More, and you are saving even more.
Things like that are often looked past, the former for the semi-substantial effort it requires, the latter because people just don't think about it, and are things that can make PC gaming cheaper than console gaming for certain people.

Not to mention that PCs aren't one size fits all so if you want to play a game but you don't have the specs for it, your big budget computer is now immediately outdated. If you have a problem, it could be anything from the game, to a virus, to a hardware problem. Some games, even after purchase, aren't ready to go out of the box either - I know from personal experience (just using this as an example) Battlefield 2 uses an anti-cheating software called punkbuster and if you download the game from Steam, it thinks the Steam overlay is cheating software and kicks you from the game. Depending on if you are familiar with the problem or not and familiar with computers in general, it can take anywhere from 15 minutes to two hours to get yourself to a point where you can actually play Battlefield 2 - mostly because that's not the only issue with the game. Once you have it up, sure it's a great multiplayer game, but compared to the alternative where you just slide in a disc and within a minute, you're ready to go: standardized consoles definitely have a point to make about their simplicity.

Actually, PCs pretty much are 1 size fits all. Not for max settings, but lowest settings almost always cater to the lowest common denominator: Consoles. If you get even a semi-reasonable PC, you WILL be able to run ANY game fine. Not on max settings, but as established no matter what settings you run it on it looks better than on a console.
Errors occur with consoles too, and hardware problems have plagued them as well. A couple of simple examples: Firmware updates killing their system for some users, and the infamous RRoD. Viruses you should not get on a PC if you have a reasonable anti-virus running, and there are a number you can get for free. After that, so long as you don't purposefully TRY to get a virus, it is difficult to get a really bad virus on your PC.
As for errors, that is largely due to developer negligence. That sort of thing I'd equate to the PS3 Skyrim bug. Things like that do happen, and they can be hard/impossible to fix, but it happens everywhere and not just on PCs.

Don't get me wrong; if you have to have only one - get a PC; for any price it has the best selection. But if you aren't limited to only one (which is sort of silly in most cases; why would you have to choose between a PS3 or having any computer?), the price of getting into it doesn't even make sense as a factual argument. Ultimately it will always come down to preference. "How do you like to play your games?" and "What type of games do you like to play?" I've got no problem with PC gamers that prefer playing on PC but it pisses me off to no end hearing PC fanboys jump into an equally juvenile "PS3 vs 360" console war and say "PC is better than both lololololol go home noob." and pat themselves on the back for a job well done putting down the masses of console gamers for their pitiful controllers. When you play only the PC you miss out on just as many, if not more exclusives than you would with simply one console and a decent PC, and you miss out on just as many potential genres (motion gaming and peripheral music gaming just to name a couple off the top of my head).

Why would I have to choose between a PS3 and a computer? Money. I could get a cheap computer, or I could buy a new TV and a PS3 and play on that. I don't have the money for both. Now, before you say 'You don't HAVE to buy a new TV', I will:
1. Bring up this as the same thing as a PC player saying you don't have to upgrade your rig every 0.1 milliseconds, or even every 8 years. It is 100% true, there is no need in either case.
2. Say that the one TV the PS3 would plug into in my house is dominated by my family watching TV. Hence, to actually be able to use the PS3, I would have to get my own TV.

Also, we don't miss out on motion controls or voice things as much as you would think, they are just never as high production value as console ones, and are often very hard to find as they don't appeal to many PC gamers. Besides, if I wanted that sort of stuff I'd use my PS2 from a long time ago. Got the bugger for $50, so not a bad buy. Using it would, however, require getting my family off the TV for an hour or so...

TL;DR PC Gamers that think they are better than everyone else annoy me. I find their argument very silly and often self-aggrandizing.

It is now that I will bring up the thing that I said I'd explain later at the beginning.
Now:
1. PC gamers are not better than console gamers (Except in 'skill' levels thanks to KB/M)
2. PCs ARE better than consoles in nearly every way, but subjectively they may not be better for an individual. An example:
KB/M IS more accurate and versatile than ANY console controller, but some people find using them harder and more painful than using a console controller.

Honestly, I get annoyed as much by the PC gamers decreeing that they are superior in every way no matter what-which argument or situation as I do the console gamers who call all PC gamers Elitists (And imply that it is a bad thing) and make misinformed arguments against them on how Consoles are obviously better. The people I don't mind are those who argue on either side, whilst understanding that in the end it comes down to personal preference and how easy it is for a person to get each.

"(Game Name) would be a great game, except it has a bunch of issues that make it suck."

*(Game Name) 2 comes out, fixes those issues*

"(Game Name) 2 shouldn't have changed the formula; it sucks now, whereas (Game Name) 1 was a flawless classic."

I see this argument every time I hear someone complain that Mass Effect 2 should've kept the Mako, TF2 should have kept grenades, and Deus Ex: HR should have kept the clueless AI of its predecessor.

In the Mass Effect example;
1. Not everyone hated the Mako, it was well loved by many and many find it far better than the Hammerhead.
2. They 'fixed' the Mako by entirely removing planet exploration and adding in planet scanning instead. Planet Scanning being the thing people absolutely HATED about ME2, I don't think it was 'fixed' at all. And whilst they did add a vehicle in in DLC, it was just that: Linear DLC story missions of which there were 6 or so (Including Overlord) that gave almost no exploration of a planet, offered linear paths through everywhere, gave you a twig on wheels with bad controls (At least on the PC IMO. Who the hell has shift as jump or whatever its default was? Why not the obvious sprint?) and tore any semblance of exploration out of the ME franchise. This isn't 'fixed'. This is Streamlined to cater to a lowest common denominator who does not want to bother exploring planets. It is an optional and fun extra removed and replaced with a semi-necessary and utterly boring minigame. 'Fixed' my ass.

 

[Joccaren]

Yeah, sorry if I came across as a little elitist, I just get bored sometimes

But yeah, I can agree with that sentiment. I seem to have a superhuman power of, despite being born only 16 years ago, being immune to any kind of graphical dating. Like, at all.

That said, shiny graphics are sometimes nice. Human Revolutionwas a breath of fresh air after the original, but it doesn't really affect my opinion on either.

Yeah, 16 too and graphics aren't too important. I will say however that there was a need for the upgrade from Arena style graphics to modern graphics. It allows things that should be hidden to be better hidden, and things that should be found more obvious. It allows more things to be done with the environment, and makes games all the better for it.
I also wouldn't mind if all games suddenly jumped up to BF3 quality graphics and that, and would actually like it. Is it needed? No. Is it cool and awesome? Yep.

Mass Effect 2 should've kept the Mako

The Mako wasn't the problem - hell, I loved that thing - it was the planet sections. In mission, it was great, in side missions, it sucked.

So you prefer the planet scanning then?
Honestly, the planet exploration sections only needed better planet design, not complete removal. Make the planets more interesting, and have some more straight forward routes to places rather than forcing me to travel around 80% of the planet or climbing up a vertical cliff face to get to where that map marker is telling me something cool is. I honestly preferred that to both the Planet Scanning and Hammerhead sections in ME2. Planet scanning was just plain boring, and pretty much compulsory for the 'Good' ending (As opposed to planet exploration which was 100% optional) and the Hammerhead sections were so... Scripted. They just felt like they weren't even trying. It didn't help that the Hammerhead had the approximate health of a box of TNT on wheels, but everything you did in it was so... linear and so forced that it wasn't even fun. I had more fun in the car chase in LotSB than in the Mako, and all I did in that was look forward. It was just implemented in a more fun way. Every Hammerhead mission basically told you 'This is a Hammerhead mission' and was used more as a 'Here, you wanted driving around planets; go' sort of thing than a 'This would be fun' sort of thing. Everything was linear, scripted events happened and the main recurring theme was platforming in a car. Give me an open world to explore with the hammerhead, I'd have more fun. Implement it like the Mako in the missions of ME1, and the car in LotSB, where it is only a small part of the overall mission with well designed areas as opposed to the whole point of the mission with reasonably designed areas, and I would like it.

 

[Smeggs]

Every damn time I see or make a thread about the new KH game, there's always SOMEBODY bitching about he doesn't like the series anymore and/or won't get it because it's no longer PS2/3-exclusive. Does that count?

Also, people complaining about the spinoffs (CoM, Days, BBS and Re:Coded) tend to dismiss them due to the fact that they're not KH3. What they tend to forget is that Word Of God has essentially said that KH3 will make no goddamn sense without the info from these games. That really ticks me off.

Just calm down, you zetta sons of digits! KH3 WILL come, I assure you!

Let me make a bet with you. I bet that half-life episode 4 will come out before Kingdom hearts 3

Spoiler

there will not be an episode 4.

Tetsuya Nomura already stated himself in an interview in Famitsu months ago that the story for the 3DS game leads directly into the story for KH3. So unless the creator of the series was lying, there will be a KH3, probably not until 2013 at the earliest though, I'd guess.

The entire storyline for the KH games was planned out from the start, that's why there are elements in the first game that didn't make sense until BBS filled in the gaps, that is why the secret ending of the original Kingdom Hearts was a scene near the end of 358/2 Days (which came out something like seven years later). BBS was a full prequel despite it being on a handheld system, and it filled in quite a large portion of the empty spaces in the series.
Without all of the in-between games (CoM, BBS, 358/2 Days) The story would be filled with more holes than swiss cheese.

Watching the secret ending of Re:Coded easily foretells what some of the biggest plot points for KH3 will be.

OT: People who contradict themselves in their arguements.

Example: Pokemon games.

"[GEN V MON] IS OVERLY COMPLICATED!"

"[OTHER GEN V MON] IS TOO SIMPLE!"

So which is the bad one? the complicated or the simple? Because if the simple is your problem I'd like to point you to half of Gen 1, seemingly considered the pinnacle of Pokemon design.

 

[orangeban]

"If you want story, go read a book!"

Yes, because a book is a suitable alternarive to a medium that is almost unique in its interactivity.

"Games are fun, don't make them serious!"

Fine buddy, you stick with your pulpy Dan Brown novels, but some of us are ready to graduate to Animal Farm (if we stick to the book theme).

Have your fun, but some of us want more than that.

 

[ERROR989]

Whenever I recommend a game to a friend, he imeadeatly dismisses it as a bad game because it doesn't have giant mechs.