Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tellemurius]

Indie can often be more unique, though. Having a lower budget means that you can experiment more because the loss won't be as big if it's unpopular.

Uniqueness and quality have no causal relationship. Look at Black Ops 2: the exact same gameplay as the eight or nine games before it (with a couple innovations) but it's still a good game.

pretty much thats the argument, same damn game but its a good game. though pretty much everyone i know is either playing halo4 or zombies in BLOPS2

That's VERY debatable.

you're damn right it is, no one is going to fucking win so you might as well start complaining about the new games.

[Aerie]

That's VERY debatable.

It's not really debatable. Black Ops II is, by expert and public review, a good game.

My point is that uniqueness and quality have no causal relationship. Just because something is unique doesn't mean it's good, and just because something isn't unique doesn't mean it's bad.

[PanH]

It's not really debatable. Black Ops II is, by expert and public review, a good game.

Ahaha. Expert on gaming journalism. There's so many debatables things about that.

[penguinofhonor]

Indie can often be more unique, though. Having a lower budget means that you can experiment more because the loss won't be as big if it's unpopular.

Uniqueness and quality have no causal relationship. Look at Black Ops 2: the exact same gameplay as the eight or nine games before it (with a couple innovations) but it's still a good game.

I don't think it does either. I was just saying that's probably a big reason people equate indie to quality, because people perceive uniqueness as quality.

[Sirus]

Can we try to get this thing back on the rails, or is everyone just gonna be providing fodder for the thread?

[Flying Dice]

That's VERY debatable.

It's not really debatable. Black Ops II is, by expert and public review, a good game.

My point is that uniqueness and quality have no causal relationship. Just because something is unique doesn't mean it's good, and just because something isn't unique doesn't mean it's bad.

I agree with your point in that it's an error to conflate uniqueness and objective quality, but I disagree with BO2 being classed as a good game. "Good" is either a subjective value judgement based on personal tastes or an objective quality judgement based on predefined characteristics identified as good. I would challenge the latter judgement on the grounds that there were serious issues with networking, particularly in terms of the party system and the matchmaking system. I bought it and enjoyed it, up until the point where I was spending two hours in chat with my friends trying to get our party into a single match without being arbitrarily dissolved. I sold the game when it got to the point where the MM system refused to put me into matches at all. Those aren't value judgements, they have nothing to do with originality or lack thereof. They are serious technical issues. It's been long enough that I've forgotten most of the complaints about the actual game mechanics, and frankly I'd like to keep it that way.

Just my $0.02.

[TCM]

That's VERY debatable.

It's not really debatable. Black Ops II is, by expert and public review, a good game.

Public opinion? Might want to check Metacritic before you say things like that :X Or the anti-COD march that you can find in every gaming corner of the Internet. Not to say that the game is bad, since the "OMFG BLACKS OPS II BEST GAME EVAR 10/10" and "BLACK OPS SUCKS IT'S WORSE THAN CANCER" are both equally ignorant viewpoints, but it does prove that the quality of the game is not considered 'Good', at least if you go by the median of mass opinion.


With my experience in Black Ops 2, did I think it was good? No. Did I think it was seriously flawed? Yes. Does that mean that people can't like it? Of course not. Many of the games I like are flawed, so it's just a matter of taste. Hell, sometimes I'll get in the mood to pop in MW for a few matches, so if you think it's good, great! I just don't think it's a good idea to use Wikipedia to determine objective conclusions.

[kaijyuu]

I'll pop in and reiterate what a few other people have said: "Good" is a subjective qualifier, and appealing to popularity is fallacious. How much you liked it, how much some random professional reviewer liked it, how high a ranking it has, all that shit is irrelevant to how much I liked it.

Discussing quality generally means we're just comparing experiences, not "debating" in any meaningful sense. (exception: analyzing works, which require everyone to submit to the same axiomatic definitions of "quality," and that gets progressively more difficult to agree upon the further into detail you go. Easy to agree upon when it comes to technical stuff like FD was talking about earlier; harder to agree upon when it comes to specific gameplay mechanics and "fun")

[penguinofhonor]

The Call of Duty hate all over the internet is almost entirely based on hating the CoD community, the fact that Activision milks it for money as hard as they can, and/or the lack of originality. None of those are really based on how good or bad the game is.

[Owlbread]

I tended to ignore the CoD community and accept Activision's manipulation in the same way I accepted EA's, but I stopped buying Call of Duty because it was just the same game over and over again. The last game that felt fun for me in that series was MW2 then it just got worse and worse.

[FearfulJesuit]

Since I'm not an FPS person, I have to ask: what's wrong with the community?

[Reelya]

From what I gather, the average player age is very young, and they spam the in-game chat with profanity and racism, similar to some in the XBox live community. strategy & RPG games don't attract the same mentality as mass-market shooters.

[Oliolli]

Regarding living forever: I am going to live forever... or die trying.

As for Call of Duty, if people consider it good then they consider it good. Nothing complicated about that. If I think that CoD isn't my type of game, it isn't my type of game, and I'll just stick to Red Orchestra.

Penguinofhonor has a point, though.

[Reelya]

Not a huge point, but the discussion wasn't originally about CoD as a whole, but CoD: Black Ops II. Saying that it sucked or didn't suck says nothing about the franchise in general, the same as saying the online community being ~90% asshats says nothing about the game itself.

[Criptfeind]

I'll pop in and reiterate what a few other people have said: "Good" is a subjective qualifier, and appealing to popularity is fallacious. How much you liked it, how much some random professional reviewer liked it, how high a ranking it has, all that shit is irrelevant to how much I liked it.

I can link to wikipedia as well. Oh wait, did I link to the very same page as you? oops.

Come off it. It's not a fallacy to point to the thousands of people being entertained by something when you make the argument that it is good at it's purpose of entertaining people.