Recurring game arguments you've noticed

[WanderingFool]

"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.

I agree with this statement.

There is this diehard Nintendo fanboy (who I know is atleast 30... and no its not MovieBob) on one site I visit that had a blog about color in games, specifically, saying Nintendo had a better selection of games because their games had more color. He also sited that other games, like COD, Killzone, Dark Souls and such, were much worse because they didnt have a more vibrant color pallete. It was a good thing he made it a blog that only his supporters would read, as if it was a thread, he would have gotten firestormed.

Sure, alot of games seem to have very muted and borwn shades of color, but in a number of those games, have a vibrant color pallete would practically kill the mood the game was trying to set.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

OPINIONS, HAVE YOU HEARD OF THEM?

This reasoning is kind of tired now. Something can be objectively bad. Subjectivity is becoming the last defense of people who can't think up a decent argument to back up their point of view.

Like I said in a previous post we may aswell drop all standards and debates about the merit of anything because someone somewhere thinks their mums cheesecake is better than a Michelin chefs.

Horror games should never be super colorful, it completely takes away from their purpose.

Fully lit and colourful horror can actually be more frightening because it makes it more real. This was used by Kubrick when he made The Shining.

 

[Hyper-space]

OPINIONS, HAVE YOU HEARD OF THEM?

This reasoning is kind of tired now. Something can be objectively bad. Subjectivity is becoming the last defense of people who can't think up a decent argument to back up their point of view.

And here's the crux of your argument: you assume that your opinion is objectively correct. You assume that you are 100% correct and everything that doesn't conform to your views (which are colored by bias, expectations and preferences) is incorrect. Explain to me how your views are 100% based in measurable objectivity and not preferences.

Saying "its objectively bad" doesn't mean shit. Your analogy about Mom's and the Michelin chef's cooking is also incorrect, seeing as its a matter of TASTE.

 

[GamemasterAnthony]

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

You sir win for that pic alone.

I wouldn't necessarily call this an "argument", but whenever Pokémon comes up there always seems to be those few people who look back on the original days of RBY and GSC for the GBC...and then verbally crap all over the Advance and DS games.

I don't get it. I just don't get why they can't allow themselves to at least TRY the newer games without making some complaint about them...especially since the newer games eliminate a lot of the problems that existed in the previous games. In fact...let me put it this way...

If it wasn't for the fact that Pokémon used a new and unique form of gameplay and if it wasn't for the fact that Pokémon actually created the very first social network in existance...

...Red and Blue should have been a commercial FAILURE.

No joke. The game had plenty of glitches within that could either be used to exploit in game or could ruin your game outright. Money was damn near impossible to get, and you technically could only get a finite amount of cash throughout the main game. Balance issues were all over the place, from the lack of Ghost and Dragon type Pokémon and moves to the fact the game itself cheats. (Seriously! Look at all the times the Gym Leaders reuse the TMs you only get one of and then throw in the Lv16 Raticate for good measure.)

All in all, Red and Blue were the first games I saw where you needed to use an Action Replay in order to actually PLAY the game! THAT says volumes about how poorly designed this game was! It was like the games were nothing more than a beta for the entire series!

Alright...enough ranting. But at least you now see why I just don't get these "nostalgists" who refuse to remove the rose-colored GogoGoggles regarding the original games.

 

[Nomanslander]

"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.

Pretty much what I was going to bring up. The one last complaint that really steamed up my PC screen was when people were complaining Deus Ex was too yellow. Games being too monotone were a problem 5 years ago about that has passed, even the last Gears game had a lot of color in parts, and like you said some games just have that aesthetical choice that fits the games theme, but I swear some people won't be happy until every game is Mario....Yeah, so go fuck yourself MovieBob Game Overthinker and leave my Gears alone be!

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

OPINIONS, HAVE YOU HEARD OF THEM?

This reasoning is kind of tired now. Something can be objectively bad. Subjectivity is becoming the last defense of people who can't think up a decent argument to back up their point of view.

And here's the crux of your argument: you assume that your opinion is objectively correct. You assume that you are 100% correct and everything that doesn't conform to your views

I'm not though, if someone can come up with arguments that are better than 'just because I like it' then I will consider a point of view. Most people can't though so they fall back on 'it's subjective.'

snip

Take this guy for example, I like Bioshock but instead of coming out with 'well I didn't like it,It's subjective' he gives actual REASONS for why he thinks the game is bad.

That's the sort of thing I want to hear because it encourages rational debate.

I could take each of his points and argue against them in a better way than just saying well atmosphere is subjective! I could say well this is how the atmosphere works well; and give my argument. Then he might say hmm I see what your saying but this is what I think is wrong with it.

Subjectivity doesn't have to be the bottom line to everything. It annoys me that you can't have a decent debate because someone always jumps in with 'It's just your opinion' Fine then I can obviously never be right about anything and neither can you. Lets not debate anything ever again...because what's the point.

 

[Hyper-space]

I'm not though, if someone can come up with arguments that are better than 'just because I like it' then I will consider a point of view. Most people can't though so they fall back on 'it's subjective.'

That is besides the point, how thorough someone is in explaining why they like a game isn't a measure of the validity of their opinions.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I'm not though, if someone can come up with arguments that are better than 'just because I like it' then I will consider a point of view. Most people can't though so they fall back on 'it's subjective.'

That is besides the point, how thorough someone is in explaining why they like a game isn't a measure of the validity of their opinions.

If someone disagrees with me I'd expect them to say why they think I'm wrong beyond 'because subjectivity'. If they can't disprove/oppose my points then how can they argue that their opposite stance is more valid.

 

[Bostur]

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

Thats probably the recurring argument I hate the most. They seem to be made by people that don't care enough to have an opinion, but for some strange reason care enough to express the opinion they don't have.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

People like to argue, there is a slight bit of fun explaining your views and trying to convince others of their validity but I think we all know a few arguments that seem to always crop up again and again with no concensus or settlement ever developing between arguing party's.

One I notice alot is the "(Bioware sequel) is better than (Bioware Origional)" I'n my own oppinion they heve a tendancy of moving away from what made the origional popular but people enjoy the new ones and I dont blame them, it is annoying but they just like the game.

So, what arguments do you see often coming up and what are your views on them?

"PC is better than console" - This is opinion, not actually a fact. The ability to have shinier graphics and better processing power do not make games more fun. A player is the ultimate judge of what is better, and thus is opinion. Now if the argument were "PC has better hardware (options) than console" then it would be fact.

"Minecraft is better than everything, Mojang and Notch are the best dev's out there" - Well I'm a little biased since I don't enjoy Minecraft and I seriously believe everyone jumped the gun on MM2011 by voting Mojang best dev of the year considering from what I hear people don't like the "final" release as much as they did the beta.

"EA is a horrible money grubbing company" conversely "VALVe/Steam are wonderful and aren't an evil money grubbing company". They're both corporations, both have different tactics for emptying your wallet, and both aren't interested in what you say. If VALVe did, they would have developed and released either or both HL2:EP3 or HL3. EA is a money grubbing company, just like EVERY other corporation out there. They just have a horrible PR department. Maybe they should offer VALVe's PR department a crapload of money. Also, for VALVe: have you seen the insane prices on the hats and other things they sell for TF2? You think thats not dirty tactics?


"Bioware is ruining x series by 'dumbing' it down for stupid console players" Ok I don't believe the Dragon Age series or Mass Effect series have lost any of their luster by streamlining the inventory systems and making combat a little bit more action packed and a little less slow. I'm not inviting a flame-war, to each his own but I liked both series, both sequels and hope that ME3/DA3 will be just as much FUN. because thats what games are about, fun.

"Graphics don't matter" (I saw someone else post this and I want to add my view to it). They really don't. I've been playing X-COM UFO defense, an old-ass game with awesome gameplay and bad graphics by todays standards yet it is still fun. I think this argument should be turned to this. So yes I agree with this, graphics don't matter. But I think that games that have beautiful graphics and still suck balls only re-affirm this.

"Nintendo sucks because they put out the same games and never innovate" Yes they do put out the same games. But never innovate? Wasn't Mario 64 one of the first semi-open world games in a 3d environment? Even though the Wii controller wasn't 100% successful in 3rd party development, it still did open a whole new door for gaming through motion controls. And people still buy the Wii despite it not being HD and STILL buy every Mario/Zelda/Metroid version that comes out. So they most definitely do not suck, nor do they not innovate. They may not be successful all the time though, thats the way of things. Example: How many formats did Sony push on us before they finally won the BluRay/HD-DVD war?

"CoD sucks and only stupid frat-boys and 12 year olds play CoD" No, thats not true. You don't like CoD and you want everyone to believe your view of the world is the correct one. This attitude is what starts religious wars so thank God gaming is not a religion. Everyone is entitled to like or dislike what they want, and more than frat-boys and 12 year olds play those games. And they're entitled to. Gaming is not an exclusive social club, this isn't the 1950's, you can't keep black people off your golf course except if they're caddies. Yes I'm likening CoD hating to racism, because its VERY similar. I hate elitists.

 

[LeQuack_Is_Back]

Anything with regards graphics. All I want is functionality.
I need to be able to see:
- what I'm supposed to be shooting at
- what I'm supposed to be picking up
- what I'm supposed to be running from

Do that, and I won't complain about graphical quality. I'll still appreciate good graphics though.

"Weapon/Character/Playstyle X is overpowered because I see it everywhere"

As much as I hate to say it, overused != overpowered. There's always going to be a weapon or class or what have you that people flock to. I'm not happy about that, but that is the truth.

 

[Singularly Datarific]

MagnaCarta II is in fact a KRPG meaning a Korean RPG developed by a Korean company located in (you guessed it) Korea. (South Korea to be more specific).

Would LOVE to see a North Korean RPG, just for the heck of it XD

Hrm- how about "COD is boring and terrible, stop making it."
Yeah, I know. The whole internet knows.

 

[Bostur]

OPINIONS, HAVE YOU HEARD OF THEM?

This reasoning is kind of tired now. Something can be objectively bad. Subjectivity is becoming the last defense of people who can't think up a decent argument to back up their point of view.

And here's the crux of your argument: you assume that your opinion is objectively correct. You assume that you are 100% correct and everything that doesn't conform to your views (which are colored by bias, expectations and preferences) is incorrect. Explain to me how your views are 100% based in measurable objectivity and not preferences.

Saying "its objectively bad" doesn't mean shit. Your analogy about Mom's and the Michelin chef's cooking is also incorrect, seeing as its a matter of TASTE.

I think there is something strange going on with taste sometimes. I agree with Jessica that taste can be objective, or at least partly objective. I may dislike something (subjective) while still being able to recognize certain qualities (partly objective).

Sometimes I happen to play a game that I really hate, but I can still tell that it's good. It's just not my cup of tea.

Of course nothing is 100% objective, or 100% subjective for that matter.

 

[pumuckl]

The idea that developers and publishers should be held at a lower standard then any other business. The model we allow these companies to profit off of is in such dire need or reform. We can't return shoddy products, we cant actually own a game, its still very much the publishers property. If ee go to Call these companys forums to call them asshats like they deserve, they can and have removed all there games from your library. They put products on the shelves that don't work, or they just plain know suck, ten price it along with skyrim, which diddnt even deserve full price since its like a book that looses ur place when ur not looking, and then finishes mid sentancek and goes on to describe a field for eternity. If any other company scted like even our best, they would of never cleared a mllion., let alone be leading tthe field and still in business.

Short verion, please stop acting like a particular studio is ur mom and thus above insult. Their only similar if your mom made money off of molesting you, then steals your lnch money while ball tapping you. Also sorry for grammar and spelling, this tablets keyboard is hard to type on.

 

[michael87cn]

That graphics are important. That story lines are important. That pretty much everything but game play is more important...

Let's stop crafting works of art and fancy stories and re-focus our effort into the game play, please.

I still play old games that are fun because they are fun; what makes them fun you ask? Not the story or the graphics, that's for sure.

Game play. It's why something as simple as a card game can entertain you for hours.

That's not to say I think every game should be as simple as mario, I never mentioned lack of complexity or depth, bear that in mind please.

 

[Weentastic]

"If its fun, why does it matter". This is a terrible argument that gets used by people who I'm pretty sure have brain damage. They seems to be pretty easy to entertain with very simple games. Especially when I would say, criticize game design decisions that lower immersion, simplify, or otherwise cheapen something that I used to think was enriching. This argument assumes that everyone approaches a game with the same expectations. If I buy a game expecting an enriching, engaging experience involving a deep storyline, but am instead confronted with simplistic gameplay that some might consider "fun", I have a right to be dissapointed.

Yeah. Simplistic fun. How dare the scum actually enjoy something when playing with a toy on a mechanized system, thereby wasting their leisure time rather than going about, inhaling wank like a true snob should. Surely they have brain damage, are defective and horrible people that shouldn't be associated with.

foreveralone.jpg

See, I actually already replied to ZeroMachine on the first page who had a slightly more eloquent response, buy you both share the same misinformed sentiment. Take a bit more time to read the post, and you'll find there's a bit more to it than that. I'm calling them brain damaged because they direct the same disdain towards me that you are, simply because I enjoy games with depth, and depth is a significant requirement for my fun.

 

[Hyper-space]

I think there is something strange going on with taste sometimes. I agree with Jessica that taste can be objective, or at least partly objective. I may dislike something (subjective) while still being able to recognize certain qualities (partly objective).

Sometimes I happen to play a game that I really hate, but I can still tell that it's good. It's just not my cup of tea.

Of course nothing is 100% objective, or 100% subjective for that matter.

Nor should one assume complete certitude when it comes to discerning between the two.

 

[Weentastic]

"If its fun, why does it matter". This is a terrible argument that gets used by people who I'm pretty sure have brain damage. They seems to be pretty easy to entertain with very simple games. Especially when I would say, criticize game design decisions that lower immersion, simplify, or otherwise cheapen something that I used to think was enriching. This argument assumes that everyone approaches a game with the same expectations. If I buy a game expecting an enriching, engaging experience involving a deep storyline, but am instead confronted with simplistic gameplay that some might consider "fun", I have a right to be dissapointed.

Yeah. Simplistic fun. How dare the scum actually enjoy something when playing with a toy on a mechanized system, thereby wasting their leisure time rather than going about, inhaling wank like a true snob should. Surely they have brain damage, are defective and horrible people that shouldn't be associated with.

foreveralone.jpg

See, I actually already replied to ZeroMachine on the first page who had a slightly more eloquent response, buy you both share the same misinformed sentiment. Take a bit more time to read the post, and you'll find there's a bit more to it than that. I'm calling them brain damaged because they direct the same disdain towards me that you are, simply because I enjoy games with depth, and depth is a significant requirement for my fun.

 

[Bostur]

I think there is something strange going on with taste sometimes. I agree with Jessica that taste can be objective, or at least partly objective. I may dislike something (subjective) while still being able to recognize certain qualities (partly objective).

Sometimes I happen to play a game that I really hate, but I can still tell that it's good. It's just not my cup of tea.

Of course nothing is 100% objective, or 100% subjective for that matter.

Nor should one assume complete certitude when it comes to discerning between the two.

And that is usually implied when talking about it.

Did anyone assume complete certitude? I didn't notice it.

 

[esperandote]

Used market hurts the industry vs Consumers rights
Single players aren't profitable
Slap multiplayer to everything