|
Post by Drawesome(Dale) on Feb 18, 2007 15:55:00 GMT -5
What allot of you don't understand is that just because you don't like a game it does'nt mean its a bad game. I have a freind who hates the MGS games but he still understands that they are good and how other people can enjoy them. I despise Panser Dragoon Orta but I can still see why people like it and that its a quality product.
|
|
|
Post by ninjarygar on Feb 18, 2007 18:38:43 GMT -5
What allot of you don't understand is that just because you don't like a game it does'nt mean its a bad game. I have a freind who hates the MGS games but he still understands that they are good and how other people can enjoy them. I despise Panser Dragoon Orta but I can still see why people like it and that its a quality product. We all understand that. Of course we do. I can't stand some good games (Halo), and I enjoy games that others hate. The spirit of this thread is not to just pick apart games that are good for the sake of being different... it's to voice out the opinions not often heard. How exactly would you DEFINE a bad game anyway? A game that nobody can enjoy? I have a nephew who plays the Dukes of Hazard on PS1 all the time. He loves it. The game sucks by my standards, and everybody else's but he enjoys it. Goes to show you that sombody can find enjoyment out of even the worst games. There cant' be a universally BAD game... somebody is going to like it. It may not be the kind of sombody who writes reviews, but sombody is going to like it. Another example, I work with a man who buys budget games for his PS2. He just bought Evil dead because he loves Bruce Campbell. He loves it. He said he looked at reviews online and that everybody says it sucks. But then he said that the reviews were all written by "the kind of people who write reviews". You see what I'm saying? Just because we don't like a game doesn't neccessarily mean it's a "bad game".... but it's a bad game to us. Videogames are a media that doesn't get paid professionals to rate them. There is no siskel & ebert of videogames. Just some guys who write magazines. Their opinions don't matter anymore than yours or mine. So even when everybody on the internet goes bananas about Superman 64, or E.T. for Atari.... but unless YOU say it's a bad game it doesn't matter what anybody else says. Not even Wikipedia. Pre internet vg discussion: Guy 1: "I just got Pacman on Atari! I love it." Guy 2: "Pfft... it sucks!" Guy 1: "Maybe you think so... but I enjoy it." Post internet vg discussion: Guy 1: "I really like this game." Guy 2: "Well I haven't played it, but it sucks." Guy 1: "Oh yeah... I agree. It totally sucks."
|
|
|
Post by Drawesome(Dale) on Feb 18, 2007 20:03:24 GMT -5
I see your point every little thing is enjoyed by someone out there. I guess by good or bad I meant the general criteria for critisizing games most be followed like how broken a game is, is it original cohesive unbroken focused fun from the start that sort of thing. I mean certaint games can be very well attuned to follow these criterias but still be disliked. What I mean is that games that follow these basic standards should be considered in general to be good rather then just based on whether you like it or not.
Not that I endorse these standards as the value of a game just that because of their basicness in general could be trusted in defining a game as good or bad rather then peoples preferences. Look at Virtue fighter it could be defined as a perfect fighter yet so many dislike it, but despite how many people dislike it it would still be defined as good by the basic criteria which should'nt factor in prefrences(but do).
I really think critics should give two ratings for games, one how much the critic himself liked it and how much he thinks others will like it. The way gaming media is now critical reveiws are only based of how much the critic himself liked rather then whether he thinks the majority will like it.
All I'm saying is that rather then sending out your opinion as whole judgment of the game mention somewhere if the majority will enjoy rather then conveying your preferences as a whole truth, and just reconize it as an opinion.
I'm kinda being confusing sorry. But if everyone understands that they are singular opinion rather then a large consensus then their is no problem.
|
|
|
Post by Jave on Oct 9, 2008 18:45:58 GMT -5
I ask because I've a hankering attack and slander Metroid Fusion, which I've only tried just today, and am not very impressed with.
It might be a while though, I've really got to get my to-do list of writing under control.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Oct 9, 2008 19:49:32 GMT -5
Actually, I was just gonna ask the same thing mother fuckerz.
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Oct 9, 2008 20:32:34 GMT -5
Eh, not really. I always meant them to be kinda like humorous trolling, but...eh.
Metroid Fusion is definitely not the best Metroid, but it has its moments.
|
|
|
Post by Jave on Oct 9, 2008 22:15:22 GMT -5
Fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by tremere98 on Oct 12, 2008 21:28:44 GMT -5
Most of your Metroid fans will agree that Fusion is the weakest of the series. On teh intarwebs Metroid seems to be popular for sequence breaking and speed running, the former of which Fusion totally removes from you. Having the computer yap at you the whole time kind of removes the "me against the world" feeling and adds a helping hand that is pretty much unnecessary. As a metroid-clone action platformer kind of game, I like it. As an actual Metroid game, it makes me cry inside.
|
|
|
Post by Haz on Oct 13, 2008 0:14:56 GMT -5
Fusion was the only Metroid game I liked. Metroidvanias normally scare me due to throwing me to the wolves.
|
|
|
Post by Jave on Oct 13, 2008 17:13:16 GMT -5
Well, let me first say that I generally don't hate any game unless I'm motivated to play it, so yeah, there are some good ideas present. But seriously, it not only points out where to go next with big flashing arrows, but more than half the time, you're cut off from every other place on the map, and it was actually a bit irksome that vast potions of the map data would be filled out as soon as you visited a place for the first time. I mean, linear is cool, but what's the point in only going halfway? Why not just break the game up into a series of stages?
I also didn't like the boss fights. Well, frankly, I don't really like boss fights in general, but the difficulty balance in Fusion is completely out of whack. It took me a good ten tries to kill that stupid robot thing, after desperately trying any strategy my poor little brain could manage. Then I stumble upon Ridley, and beat him on the first try, by button mashing no less, and it really got on my nerves when after you beat each boss, they'd all turn into that same Evil Otto thing you'd have to kill over and over again.
I think I could've made 1500 to 2000 more words on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Oct 13, 2008 18:18:23 GMT -5
Well, long story short - I mostly wrote the DQ8 article because I was pissed off at some douchebag fanboys at a forum I visited. Fans of niche games can be wankers, but these people really irritated to me. They were complaining about it being bundled with the FFXII demo because the presence of Final Fantasy was tainting their pure and treasured Dragon Quest. And, I mean, fuck you. This isn't a contest. It's totally cool to like both series - they both do different things and do them well. But these folks were the kind that lamented that DQ games were overlooked because everyone else was just too stupid to appreciate them. That kind of attitude rather bothers me, especially because the DQ games do have very apparent reasons why people don't like them. Even though I admit I rather like the series now, I still tend to argue with some of the more hardcore fans, although it usually ends up going nowhere.
Anyway, it was mostly wrote the troll them. Animal Crossing was a bit more lighthearted, but it was kinda aimed at Nintendo fanboys too, the kind that were fully grown men lapping up the game in droves even though it was made for ten year olds (and younger). I think the sentiment is already carried on in Actionbutton.net and Yahtzee's Zero Punctuation stuff, so anything else I think would be redundant.
Anyway, I can't really think of Fusion as being an appropriate topic, just because there aren't any annoying fans associated with it. Even the ones that do like it admit that it's a good game, just not a good Metroid game, to parrot what Tremere said.
Me, I wouldn't mind doing one about Cave games someday - I actually DO like them, but some shooter fans are just way, way, way out there.
|
|