Gaming misconceptions that bug you

[roushimsx]

Licensed Games Tend to Suck

I can only surmise that this retarded stereotype is a hold over from the NES-era when Acclaim/LJN dumped high profile shit on the unsuspecting public and left bitter manchildren complaining until well past the new millennium the bogus "fact" that "licensed games suck". It's true that there's plenty of licensed games that suck, but if you look at any broad spectrum of games loosely connected (for instance, first person perspective games or games with male protagonists), you'll find a relatively wide range of garbage.

This somewhat piggybacks on the "All Bond games other than Goldeneye Suck" myth, which itself is annoying, but it expands out to include licensed games like *gasp* the entire Tom Clancy franchise (Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, Sum of All Fears, Splinter Cell, etc), the Rock Band / Guitar Hero franchises (where would they be without their licensed soundtracks?), the Terminator franchise (some of the biggest innovations in first person shooters happened in Future Shock and Skynet), Star Wars (like Terminator, Dark Forces and Jedi Knight were major evolutions of FPS design and there's plenty of other amazing games, like Tie Fighter, in the franchise), etc etc.

People shouldn't act so surprised when a licensed game comes out and winds up rocking, especially if they do even the smallest amount of research beforehand on who's making it and what their development history is like.

[justjustin]

Nov 7, 2010 6:13:40 GMT -5 pkt said:

Games need to be fun
Might as well say that all movies and novels should strive for is entertainment. That's not the case.

I think I understand what you mean, so I'll ask: Why define entertainment and fun with negative connotations? Why separate it from the so-called higher/deeper experiences games can offer? Aren't those experiences fun?

In my mind there is no such thing as a game that is good, but not fun. Even if, say, you hated how a game played but loved the audiovisuals and the idea behind it, it's still fun. Why else would you play it?

It seems to me this whole trend of thinking games don't need to be fun originated from the untalented, indie developers (as opposed to the talented ones, which do exist! Just want to make that clear!) who-- after creating shit-- use this argument to falsely elevate their work above others. And the people who like these terrible games use this same argument to justify their taste; that their preference transcends "mere" fun. It started an isolated social phenomenon that I generally ignored, but recently it's been spreading even among people who love to play and develop good games. It's no coincidence that the more popular these terrible games become, the stronger this argument grows.

[jorpho]

I grow so very weary of the multitudes of armchair CEOs who believe they know more about how games should be marketed than people who have stacks of genuine sales figures and the years of high-level academic training needed to make sense of said figures.

[Jave]

Nov 7, 2010 6:13:40 GMT -5 pkt said:

Games need to be fun
Might as well say that all movies and novels should strive for is entertainment. That's not the case.

Okay, I'll play all the fun games, you can have the rest.

Fair split?

[wyrdwad]

Yeah, I'm going to jump on the "games DO need to be fun" bandwagon.

Movies and novels DO need to be entertaining, too.

Not really sure how that's a misconception. I mean, if you're not entertained or learning something (which is, in and of itself, a form of entertainment), or having fun (which is a VERY broad term), then why are you bothering to read/watch/play a thing? (:

-Tom

[derboo]

Fun is not that broad a term when most English dictionaries are to be believed...

Entertainment is, though. Would be a stronger argument when entertainment is replaced with amusement (which makes the better equivalent for "fun", anyway).

[wyrdwad]

I think that's just splitting hairs, personally! The point is, if you're enjoying yourself ON SOME LEVEL, then it's worthwhile.

-Tom

[vnisanian2001]

Here's one:

Myth: Some sources, practically the Metal Gear Solid instruction manual, say that the original Metal Gear, won critical acclaim for its extremely developed storyline.

Fact: The original game didn't have that much of a developed storyline to begin with. Solid Snake didn't have many lines to begin with. Kojima didn't start experimenting with highly developed storylines until Snatcher one year later, and Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake, was the first Metal Gear game to have one.

[kobushi]

Some smart guy (Clint Hocking, I think?) said that most people who say "Games should be fun" really mean "Games should be compelling".

Consider, for example, when I die for the 10th time in a row in Ninja Gaiden, or when a FOE reduces my party to a broken, bleeding wreck in Etrian Odyssey. At those times, if you asked me, "Are you having fun???", I might punch you in a manner not unlike wyrdwad's avatar. But I might still punch you if you tried to take the controller out of my hands, because Ninja Gaiden and Etrian Odyssey are extremely compelling games. Meanwhile, many modern games are too "fun" in the bad sense of the word - everything is too easy, too convenient. God forbid I might stop having "fun" for 5 minutes and actually have to make an effort.

I can understand both sides of the argument. On the one hand, every artistic medium needs an avant-garde to expand its possibilities. On the other hand, every avant-garde in history has been filled with narcissistic poseurs and babbling morons, with only occasional streaks of genius glinting among vast swathes of bullshit. If you tell the avant-garde "Games should be fun", you'll have a hundred Duchamp-wannabees saying "Here! This is a game, and it's not fun at all! Take that, Establishment!"
But this kind of antagonistic design almost always misses the point, and only results in unplayable garbage.

Overall, I think "fun" is a useful metric and worth holding on to as an anchor, even though we may continute to debate its meaning and usefulness. Here's one thing I love about video games: unlike books and film, there is still a tight correlation between what is popular, and what is considered high art. That correlation grows weaker every year (hello Farmville :, but "fun" is the glue that keeps it together.

[Deleted]

I think Beat Takeshi missed that memo when he made Takeshi no Chôsenjô.

[Ryu the Grappler]

Nov 7, 2010 4:56:47 GMT -5 kitten said:

How was Bionic Commando more difficult? I never heard about that one. Also, Ninja Gaiden 3 is a really good example. It took me hours to beat the US version, where I was able to finish the Japanese version (before finishing the US version) without continuing almost immediately and with little practice on the US version beforehand.

The Famicom version of Bionic Commando has more extra lives in certain stages and there are more platforms in a certain stage that has a spiked floor (don't remember which stage it was specifically). Nothing major, but I found the Famicom version a bit easier to clear.

I forgot Ninja Gaiden III and how ridiculously hard the NES version was. Twice the damage, no passwords, and limited continues.

Myth: Some sources, practically the Metal Gear Solid instruction manual, say that the original Metal Gear, won critical acclaim for its extremely developed storyline.

Fact: The original game didn't have that much of a developed storyline to begin with. Solid Snake didn't have many lines to begin with. Kojima didn't start experimenting with highly developed storylines until Snatcher one year later, and Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake, was the first Metal Gear game to have one.

The first Metal Gear barely had any story to begin with and what little had was basically as generic as you would expect from a Rambo-era 1980's action game. The only plot twist in the game comes from finding out that the main character's commanding officer was a traitor. Hell, even the plot of Metal Gear 2 was nothing special in retrospect.

It always bothers me that people complain that the plot of Snake's Revenge was not as deep as the rest of the series, when the pre-Metal Gear Solid games never had deep stories to begin with.

[kobushi]

I think Beat Takeshi missed that memo when he made Takeshi no Chôsenjô.

Actually that's a really good example. Beat Takeshi is not part of the avant-garde, at least for video games, but he is a consummate prankster, and he created a crude and spiteful prank on the gaming world.

Takeshi no Chousenjou is a horrible game, and didn't contribute anything to the medium. It's just a laugh at gamers who commit themselves to incredible challenges, and take satisfaction in accomplishing them. He could have simply created a fundraiser inviting paraplegics to climb Mt. Fuji, and then installed an electrified fence and spike pits at the summit.

And yet it was inducted into the Retro Game Hall of Fame at the 2007 Tokyo Game Show. What the hell for? Like many avant-garde works, it is adored by critics rather than gamers, and utterly unrewarding to play.

[kitten]

Nov 7, 2010 19:44:04 GMT -5 Ryu the Grappler said:

I forgot Ninja Gaiden III and how ridiculously hard the NES version was. Twice the damage, no passwords, and limited continues.

It gets even worse than those changes, too. There are less power-ups (including less 1ups and health potions, and more enemies/more difficult enemy placement. It's really too unfairly difficult while the Japanese version is just too easy, I wish they would have found a middle ground.

[X-pert74]

The original Metal Gear's storyline is rather simple in comparison to the others, but I found Metal Gear 2's storyline to be pretty satisfying; even after playing Metal Gear Solid before it.

[wyrdwad]

Isn't Metal Gear 2 the one where you use an owl to convince a guard that it's nighttime? And feed chocolate to flesh-eating hamsters, or something?

I read through that big long rant about it that somebody posted, and yeah... it sounds fun, but impossible to take seriously in any way. (:

-Tom