Your Favorite Game Sucks

[Mysnomer]

I think, Shamus, it comes down to interpretation. I interpreted, as many others, that judging a game without playing was decrying the broader idea of attacking a game without knowing about it. I would agree that a game can be judged once you have a certain level of information about it, and playing it is just one way to gather that information. That said, I don't think you should be able to complain about subjective aspects of playing the game without having done so.

 

[PunkRex]

Because you may be wrong. Its what you just said, a chance, a gamble. Chances are you are going to loose but you may win BIG! However weather or not you decide to go with the safe choice or the big gamble does depend on the sort of person you are and how bored you are with your currnt gaming lifestyle. At the end of the day both logical choices.

I think were getting off topic, the disscussion is not about weather or not you should or should not buy a game but weather someone who has played the game has a more valid opinion then someone who has not. In my opinion they do because the person who has not experienced it cannot be 100% sure. They are guessing, maybe a well fomulated and reserched guess but a guess non the less.

 

[PunkRex]

Because you may be wrong. Its what you just said, a chance, a gamble. Chances are you are going to loose but you may win BIG! However weather or not you decide to go with the safe choice or the big gamble does depend on the sort of person you are and how bored you are with your currnt gaming lifestyle. At the end of the day both logical choices.

I think were getting off topic, the disscussion is not about weather or not you should or should not buy a game but weather someone who has played the game has a more valid opinion then someone who has not. In my opinion they do because the person who has not experienced it cannot be 100% sure. They are guessing, maybe a well fomulated and reserched guess but a guess non the less.

 

[PunkRex]

Wait WHAT. Guy what you just said concerns two people who have experienced it.

I really dont want to use this example so lets try dohnuts. Someone does not like sweet things so assumes that they wont like dohnuts, fair enough, your proberly right (99%). However they will never know for certain. I dont like Tomatos but like Tomato sauce and I dont like cheese but enjoy pizza. Your talking about oppions of two people who have experienced it not weather or not theirs is more valid then someone who has not.

Actually, I'm talking about the validity of opinions. Claiming one opinion is more "valid" than the other is a paradoxic argument.

Ultimately, the only opinion that is valid is your own, because it is unique and applies only to YOU. Lets take two people: One likes strategy games, one doesn't. The one who does like them has played them a lot, while the one who doesn't like them has either never played them or played one. So is the opinion of the guy who likes them more valid because he has actually played them? Of course not. His opinion is only valid for himself, and the same goes for the other guy, as his opinion is just as valid to himself.

Now, you can seek out other people who share similar opinions to yourself to get evaluations of products you plan to buy. Take Zero Punctuation for example. I watch that show not only because it's fun, but because Yahtzees opinion of what makes a game good is very similar to my own most of the time, so therefore his opinion on a game is more valid to me than the opinion of, say, Hannibal the Halo-Fan. But Hannibals opinion might be more valid for, say, FPS-Doug than me and Yahtzees.

The world is different for everyone. There isn't any two persons in the world who are exactly the same, share exactly the same mindset or perceive the world the same. Even some things that you might perceive as "the universal truth" isn't true for everyone else. For example, you might have accepted the fact that the sky is blue or that the grass is green, but try explaining that to someone who is completely colorblind

Yes, you will never know something 100% until you try it. But if you are 99% sure that a game is a waste of your money, why take the chance?

However, The Random One also has a point. Although we can't know the objective values of objects (because there are none), a claim about one's OWN OPINION IS A DESCRIPTIVE CLAIM. Specifically it is the claim that one does or does not like a game, which is not a statement about the game, but about oneself. And someone who has actually played a game can actually say that HE DOESN'T LIKE PLAYING THE GAME, whereas someone who avoids playing it for certain reasons is claiming that HE WOULDN'T LIKE THE GAME IF HE PLAYED IT. Obviously the first claim is stronger than the other, because there can be little doubt of the first claim's truth if the guy has already played the game, whereas it's still plausible that the guy making the second claim could enjoy the game anyway for some unseen reason.

Just wanted to give a quick reply and reference the section above, and mention that you are wrong about the bolded part.

To give you an example. I was out bathing with my family once at a lake in Italy (Lake Garda). I jumped in the water while my two little sisters was still standing on the bridge. I then told my youngest sister: "Jump in, the water is a great temperature", but my other sister told her "Don't, it's probably cold". By your argument, my claim is the stronger one, because i have first hand experience. But to my youngest sister, who know that my threshold for when i consider bathing water to be cold is a lot more tolerant than theirs, the opinion of my other sister is the stronger because they share a similar mindset about when water is cold, even though I'm the only one who truly knows. Even if a complete stranger was standing nearby on the bridge and overheard our conversation, to him or her my claim still wouldn't be stronger because they don't know me (and therefore don't know my mindset), and they can't evaluate my criticism based on that.

Like i said, when judging the opinions of others, we value the opinion of people who shares the same opinion than us higher. Therefore, the first claim isn't automatically stronger than the other. It might be stronger for you, but someone of a completely different mindset would disagree.

Because you may be wrong. Its what you just said, a chance, a gamble. Chances are you are going to loose but you may win BIG! However weather or not you decide to go with the safe choice or the big gamble does depend on the sort of person you are and how bored you are with your currnt gaming lifestyle. At the end of the day both logical choices.

I think were getting off topic, the disscussion is not about weather or not you should or should not buy a game but weather someone who has played the game has a more valid opinion then someone who has not. In my opinion they do because the person who has not experienced it cannot be 100% sure. They are guessing, maybe a well fomulated and reserched guess but a guess non the less.

PS: Sorry for the reposts, bloody quotes messing me around.

 

[reachforthesky]

I think were getting off topic, the disscussion is not about weather or not you should or should not buy a game but weather someone who has played the game has a more valid opinion then someone who has not. In my opinion they do because the person who has not experienced it cannot be 100% sure. They are guessing, maybe a well fomulated and reserched guess but a guess non the less.

PS: Sorry for the reposts, bloody quotes messing me around.

There is a difference between a "guess" and an "inference". If a game is part of a genre I can't stand, by a developer who has made games I despise, is being torn apart by reviewers I trust, and has throughout it's development cycle has been touting features that make the flash-bangs in CS look like a good idea, I can infer I won't like it. Joe Bloggs opinion is not more valid than my inference because he has played the game, for one my inference may be based on the opinions of those who have also. Joe doesn't know me, he doesn't know the games I like or what I think is important of a game. His assumption that I will like the game just because he does is a guess, and infinitely less valid than my inference. Especially if he's a fanboi.

Surely you don't find it odd to have positive opinions about a game before you play it, why would it be any different for cynicism?

 

[pneuma08]

The fanboy strawman Shamus puts up ... is right. You should try to find and enjoy the good parts of games, not ignore them and ***** about the parts that don't matter.

If you complain about the mediocre singleplayer in a primarily multiplayer game, it's not that you're wrong ... your commentary is just irrelevant.

I disagree; you assume that the person talking is only trying to have fun playing the game. If one is deconstructing a game (either for the betterment of the medium or simply self-interest), then the reverse would make more sense. An example: if I'm playing Mass Effect 2, in play I would downplay the time spent gathering minerals, but like hell I'm going to stay silent about that because it needs to change before Mass Effect 3 comes out (at least Bioware has shown that they are paying attention, but I digress). Games are improved not only by adding new things, but by fixing the old and the broken, and the latter is worth exploring as much as the former.

Know the type of game you're playing, and judge it on the qualities that people who play that type of game care about.

Or just write some self-indulgent stuff no one cares about.

The problem with this argument is the same problem with niches and genres. If this is true then when talking about a "Halo" game the only thing worth discussing is what "Halo" players like about it. This is short-sighted; why is "What Halo players like about Halo" more important than "What keeps people from liking Halo"? In fact, if one can answer both questions, then they can build a game that would be more popular than Halo, whereas otherwise people who don't (or even might not) like Halo are simply excluded from the conversation.

 

[Callate]

I think this is well said and makes some good points. But that said, I also think that while someone's opinion shouldn't be dismissed on the basis of being based on second-hand information (reviews, articles, talking with friends, etc.), the person stating their opinion should also have the good grace to mention what their view of the product is based upon- whether it's actual game play, a Metacritic score, Yahtzee's review, experience with similar works in the genre, or what have you. And certainly even as many of us could stand to temper heated opinions down a bit, the people whose opinions of a game are based on other people's opinions of a game have all the more reason not to sneer at someone for, say, liking a game that some jaded critic said it was derivative.

 

[mikespoff]

Excellent article!

If you're going to be vocal about your distaste for something you should probably have some specific reasons, but hands-on experience doesn't have to be one of them.

 

[PrinceofPersia]

There is only one comment in this article I have a problem with, it's this:

Last week I had my rules for not pissing off the fanboys. They were satire, but a lot of people agreed with point #2 - that you shouldn't have an opinion on a game until you've played it. This is a horrible and self-destructive attitude to take. As a consumer, it's your job to be discriminating with what you buy. You worked for your money (I hope) and so you owe it to yourself to be careful where you put it. And that means forming on opinions on things before you pay for them.

He acts like there isn't such a thing as GameFly out there. And even then if you don't want to spend money on that, there's always asking your friends if they have the game in question and if you could borrow it. That's how I got ahold of the first Halo game...

Thank you for pointing out this fact in the post. When you have services or means that allow you to play before you buy means that being ignorant about the content of a game is a luxury you no longer have.

 

[Danz D Man]

I really hate black people. I mean, I've never actually dealt with one, but from what I've heard and what I've seen on T.V, I don't think I'll like black people.

 

[duchaked]

I don't have time to hate an exclusive game, I'm usually just indifferent
I'll probably be a bit more displeased towards its fanboys tho

I haven't played FarmVille but I do have a Zen Garden in Plants Versus Zombies so I'm seeing the appeal-er, addiction a bit (oops)
and earning (not quite grinding) points in Reach does serve to remind me of a MMO...

oh and I read the first Twilight book
sigh

 

[darkfire613]

But at the same time, what if someone is absolutely devoted to hating something that you're pretty sure they'd like if they were given the chance? This happened to me with Nazi Zombies. I had a negative attitude about it before I'd ever played, and even for my next couple games. After that, because of my friend's constant insistence that it really was good, I decided to give it another try, and I actually did enjoy it. That's just one personal example, but I'm sure there are others (and no, this isn't just me succumbing to "peer pressure" or whatever, it was just that the first few games I played really were crappy and I was bored, but my next few games were enjoyable).

 

[WaderiAAA]

I'd say that if the sales strategies are cruel, you are allowed to hate the game before you've played it. otherwise you should not hate it without playing it, but you are free to not give a crap about it.

 

[crimsonshrouds]

Thank you for stating this.

I may have never read twilight but i can still say its a pile of shit.

I do not have to try a crap sandwich before i say it is terrible.

 

[Chrinik]

Baseline goes as this:
You can have an opinion, you cannot always voice it.
Because if you do voice certain opinions, you damage yourself, and your validity...
For example, if you blurt out in public how you "like to "play" with little girls!", you probably get a visit by the police at some point or another.


I have been accused of Fanboyism of a bad game recently...

I dared to say that I had fun with Kane&Lynch 2, because it featured a coop so I could play with my Brother.
I also made a point about "repetitive games" being seen as so repetetive because most gamers (like myself), play them as much as they can in a row...and I just said that I guess that a Game was not really meant to be played through without short breaks at least.
Que some random dude who tells me I´m a "bad-games Fanboy", trying to advertise a game that is CLEARLY so bad it´s horrible, and I just cannot see how bad and evil and full of un-fun it is.

I dunno, I did not percieve K&L2 to be so god-awful (exept the ending...which blowed), probably because I played it with my brother...that catapults a mediocre or bad game into the higher ranks for me, because it is a rare occurance, and it´s always funner to play with someone you can shout at when you died XD (We shout alot when playing the K&L games, because we blame each other on certain stuff, it´s really funny.)

So here´s an example of how voicing your opinion can be a bad idea.
Altho some people hide behind the face of "free speech", it is entirely a farce.
You CAN be a total dickhead, that does not mean you should...
Politeness is still important.
Also, in some countrys, Free Speech is not really "say anything you want"...
As I said above, you can have your own opinion, but if you voice it out, be aware of possible concequences.

 

[GooBeyond]

i completely disagree.

formulating an opinion without playing a game is a sign of ignorance.
yes, even those who hated on farmVille and twilight without playing/reading it are ignorant.

you are ignorant for justifying their ignorant claims. if you don't like it, don't play it, but don't go around and shout in everyone's ears how you hate it, cause unless you've played it, your argument is invalid. someone defending something from someone elses ignorant claim is not fanboyism, hating on something without reason is.
once you've played and still don't like the game, then you may rant on how the game is not to your taste based on legitimate reasons.

example:

FUCK HALO ITS JUST AN ALIEN SHOOTER BUT KILLZONE ROCKS >> double standards. not played it. ignorant dick.

i dont like shooters, i wont judge halo nor killzone. >> ok, your taste is different. you don't have to play it.

i didn't enjoy halo because of its theme and scrambled story. but killzones mechanics were more to my taste >> played and didn't enjoy. legit reasons.

/rant

 

[JPH330]

He acts like there isn't such a thing as GameFly out there. And even then if you don't want to spend money on that, there's always asking your friends if they have the game in question and if you could borrow it. That's how I got ahold of the first Halo game.

That doesn't work for PC games.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

It is reasonable to conclude you probably won't like a game based on what you know about it. It is unreasonable to declare a game terrible and refuse to look at it without playing it first.

I generally don't like sports games but that doesn't mean I go around saying "sports games suck" and complaining about the people who play them. That would be rude. I haven't played Farmville and everything I hear about it tells me I won't like it. But if other people enjoy it then more power to them.

In both cases I have incomplete second hand information but in the first case I'm only making a judgment about myself and in the second case I'm arrogantly declaring an absolute truth that applies to everyone.

One reason I really like Yahtzee's reviews is because he actually plays the games as much as he can, unlike most of the other reviews by "professionals".