Print

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

[Neonivek]

Ok seriously what is it about time and people's opinions on games?

There are so many games that have a unbreakable wall of fandom on release that will gouge your eyes out for even hinting at flaws and ONLY accepting the tiniest inconsequential ones.

But give it a year and what was once a pillar of amazing gameplay... people suddenly admit "Ohh... yeah it wasn't a good game.... like at all. In fact it was pretty bad".

How the world does this happen? YEAH! I might be more hyped about a game at first and slowly learn how not very good it is over time.

For example me and: The Last Remnant. I loved it and wondered why it is so lukewarm... until I played it and the game managed to beat me down. It is one of the ONLY games I've seen that manages to lull you into a complete sense of security... Because you will hit a point where you can easily kill everything and the game becomes boring. You will ASSUME you are overleveled and advance the plot after tens of hours of gameplay... NOPE!

Yet I wasn't one extoling its virtues as if it was unapproachable. Only wishing the game has a sequel to smooth over the bad parts of the game.

[Chiefwaffles]

I'd say it's kind of a form of denial.

I mean, it's not exactly total denial, but it makes sense. Just rationalization. Someone's super hyped for a game, they get it, and they make excuses and rationalizations for the game internally in order to justify their hype and ensure that being hyped for it was the "correct decision". Of course, it gets harder and thus rarer the worse a game is compared to its hype and expectations, but it seems most prominent in the okay to good-but-not-amazing games.

Like if you're excited for Call of Duty 23: Ascended Warfare and think it'll be the best game ever then get it, you'd naturally want your assumption to be right. And since you enjoy the game well enough, you "fill in the gaps" that don't fit with your expectation with justifications and convenient ignoring. It's only with time that you start to care less about the game and your hype for it that you let the façade down and slowly begin to realize that the game maybe wasn't as enjoyable as you said it was.

[Persus13]

When you're playing a game for the first time, it can be fun to just be playing something new and be figuring out things and see how the story goes, because you don't have an overall idea of the game. Repetitive tasks and context can make something less fun. For instance, I thought the hacking minigame was fun in Mass Effect 1 when I got it for the first time. Now I don't mind it, but it can be really annoying sometimes because you have to use it basically everytime you open something.

[Neonivek]

Ohh if there is one thing that REALLY bugs me... game related but not in games

Defense videos

Don't get me wrong, seeing people's different views on a particular topic especially one I don't agree with can be very informative.

Defense videos always feel like debate club. Like they were handed a topic and they are going to debate it regardless of their actual feelings. Thus it comes off as extremely disingenuous.

"Ohh, the unskippable cutscenes are actually a feature!"
Me: "Ohh just get off the stage"

---

Though Game Theory videos are the worst... Only one person really makes those... and people have caught onto how bat crazy stupid they are.

GAMETHEORY! Mario is Batman!

You see... Mario comes from New York and as you know... New York is a lot like Gotham... and Batman lives in Gotham... You never see Mario's parents... So we can safely conclude they are dead. (Yeah I am exaggerating... but not by much... In fact... I am not exaggerating at all given some of them)

It only bugged me because... I actually DO like deep lore discussions. I don't like being fed this.

[Krevsin]

Dunno, if it's well-argued I like to listen to defense videos.

What's worse is when people just claim something and give absolutely nothing to support their claim. I.e. "THIS THING IS BAD BECAUSE IT'S BAD" or "THIS THING IS GOOD BECAUSE IT'S GOOD". Or when like Game Theory, they just find the loosest threads to hang on to which spiral off into entirely disproportionate claims about everything like a conspiracy theory.

[NullForceOmega]

When bullshit design is mistaken for "challenging":

Okay, when you make a game which has escalating difficulty, you are supposed to build the entirety of the content on one 'level' of that difficulty to be roughly homogenous.  For instance, if you are constructing a team-based monster hunting game, where the default team size is four, you do not throw in a bunch of missions wherein you can only employ two hunters where the multiple monsters in those missions are scaled to same difficulty as the rest of that 'level'.  You lower the difficulty of the individual monsters to make them approximately equal to the rest of your content.

There is no defending this bullshit, especially when the main progression of the game is directly tied to progress through what should be 'side' missions.

Now, just to be clear, I have no problem with having side missions that are unrelated to the main plot have higher difficulty, that is completely acceptable to me, but making main content have ridiculous difficulty spikes like this is evidence of bad game design.

[NullForceOmega]

Oh, I have no doubt that a great many people can pull these particular missions off without any real problems, I just find that inserting them without regard to consistency is offensive and very bad design.  Especially when the game is supposedly structured for cooperative online play, but these missions also cannot be carried out while in said online play, and MUST be performed with only the PC and the designated NPC.

[Neonivek]

Dunno, if it's well-argued I like to listen to defense videos.

It boils down to this.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. A defense video will pull everything into it to defend its point and in doing so will add on the weakest points that manage to weaken the entire argument.

They lack focus a lot of the time.

Think Unskippable Cutscenes are good? Fine... But don't suddenly talk about artistic vision.

When bullshit design is mistaken for "challenging":

Okay, when you make a game which has escalating difficulty, you are supposed to build the entirety of the content on one 'level' of that difficulty to be roughly homogenous.  For instance, if you are constructing a team-based monster hunting game, where the default team size is four, you do not throw in a bunch of missions wherein you can only employ two hunters where the multiple monsters in those missions are scaled to same difficulty as the rest of that 'level'.  You lower the difficulty of the individual monsters to make them approximately equal to the rest of your content.

There is no defending this bullshit, especially when the main progression of the game is directly tied to progress through what should be 'side' missions.

Now, just to be clear, I have no problem with having side missions that are unrelated to the main plot have higher difficulty, that is completely acceptable to me, but making main content have ridiculous difficulty spikes like this is evidence of bad game design.

This is why Super Castlevania is SUCH an interesting piece in terms of gaming culture. It is lauded as "too easy"

But why is it too easy? Because it is a "Mostly" recreation of the first Castlevania game... except with the controls vastly improved.

[NullForceOmega]

In this particular case, the most mind-numbingly stupid part of this problem is that these NPCs are 'fresh'.  Until this portion of the game they were not even present in the game, so unlike the rest of the NPC lineup, there has been no time to improve them through gaining AP to purchase higher skill levels for necessary skills.  So on top of having to play these missions at half-strength, it's more like an overblown escort mission where the escort target is prone to getting themselves knocked out trying to help.

[Neonivek]

It is really REALLY infuriating to hear players defend it as "Well just get better"

There are a reason why escort quests are disliked and it isn't that they are "hard"

[Krevsin]

Dunno, if it's well-argued I like to listen to defense videos.

It boils down to this.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. A defense video will pull everything into it to defend its point and in doing so will add on the weakest points that manage to weaken the entire argument.

They lack focus a lot of the time.

Think Unskippable Cutscenes are good? Fine... But don't suddenly talk about artistic vision.

An argument isn't a chain though and unless a point specifically relies on other points to make sense, it's entirely possible to isolate the arguments made and approach each of them at their own value. Denouncing an entire video because of a single badly made point is ridiculous, arrogant and as harmful to the very idea of discussion of a work's merits as pulling points out of nowhere and stringing them together. A weak point weakens the overall impression but it doesn't magically make all the other points not work (Unless again the other points are related to the original, weak one.). Someone can present a dumb statement about how unskippable cutscenes are vital to the entire game and still be right about how well the game's core mechanics interact very well with one another.

I'm not defending poorly made "analysis" videos or self-serving rants about why a thing is great or bad, but flippantly dismissing an entire video based on a single conclusion the creator makes is dumb and ultimately causes more harm than good. Unless that single conclusion is horrible horrible racism or somesuch.

[Neonivek]

Not a bad point. Yet when someone will use anything and everything it seems less genuine. It is more a spectacle than argument at that point.

I want their honest opinions supported through arguments.

I don't to sit in highschool debate club "I think we should pollute more because pollution kills off alligators who kill one hundred people a year"

---

Not that a defense video CAN'T be focused. It just isn't what I typically see...

it doesn't magically make all the other points not work

It means that in order to make their point they MUST use any and all argument no matter how weak.

Which implies that their point is indefensible. That is what happens when you cover too many of your bases. That is what they are communicating to you: they have no leg to stand on.

One bad point or even a few bad points doesn't kill your argument... But constant weak points certainly does weaken it considerably to your audience.

One strong argument is greater than one strong argument surrounded by weak ones.

---
---

Though a good question is... WHY are defense videos basically argument shotguns?

One could be that they perceive their position as the weaker one (which definitely shows in their videos) and are overcompensating.

Another could be due to the double standards of "alternate opinions" that they feel they must address every single possible argument against them.

---

What is odd is in a argument... NOT having a counter argument is often a far greater tool.

"The durability system in Zelda actually makes the player think on the fly and use tools they would normally never use, allowing the variety to shine forth brightly"
"Ahuh, yeah... By forcing the players hand down one route it is somehow encouraging variety"

Stop there! your viewer can make up their opinion. You made a strong argument and even though someone made one back against you... But then... with defense videos... you get the counter argument.

"Well, in Skyrim you never used half the weapons you collected making most of them pointless"

[Krevsin]

Well videos are more closely related to essays than anything else, really.

You can have as many arguments as you want but what really makes or breaks an essay is the conclusion, where all the arguments are folded up and presented with a neat little bow.

So if you buggered up many of your arguments, your conclusion will be messy and fail utterly in summing up and presenting your arguments, even if some of them can be very strong arguments.

Anyways this is arguing semantics at this point. Back on topic.

Mixed turn-based and real-time combat
Just no. Turn-based games are all about planning and thinking out your strategies whereas real-time is more about your reflexes and the ability to improvise. If you mix them together the result is oftentimes just kind of a mess.

[Neonivek]

While there are exceptions Krevsin... You are definitely right in general...

Then again... that is why they are called exceptions

Like Freedom Force (well the sequel... I actually don't like the first game)

[Krevsin]

Man, Freedom Force vs. The 3rd Reich was such a good game. It was so silly. You could turn nazis into potted plants and throw them around. Great stuff.

Speaking of superhero games

Gritty dark superhero anything
Come on guys you're talking about people who dress up in colourful spandex and punch people dressed in similarily colourful spandex. I'm not saying that you can't do gritty dark superhero shit but there's such a lot of it about nowadays and I'm really tired of it.

Just yaknow, just for a change have fun with your people dressed in colourful spandex wearing masks and punching evil criminals into jail. Have some fun with the concepts instead of going on and on about how terrible and moody these people are despite being literally better than everyone else both physically and morally. Have a sense of goddamn fun about these wacky people.