[QUOTE=redBadger;29087341]I wasn't trying to start an argument. I was simply stating a point.[/QUOTE]
Oh alright then, that's perfectly reasonable. I understand where you're coming from and I acknowledge that subjective opinion is totally valid when it comes to individual judgement, but I have to disagree that the level of quality of a game is totally subjective. I think success can be measured in an objective and relative way as well, and by individuals who either dislike or like the game in question, or neither. Also that in public discourse the latter has more relevance than the former.
[QUOTE=Riutet;29087784]Oh alright then, that's perfectly reasonable. I understand where you're coming from and I acknowledge that subjective opinion is totally valid when it comes to individual judgement, but I have to disagree that the level of quality of a game is totally subjective. I think success can be measured in an objective and relative way as well, and by individuals who either dislike or like the game in question, or neither. Also that in public discourse the latter has more relevance than the former.[/QUOTE]
You're quite pretentious, aren't you.
-snip-
[QUOTE=Dr Bob;29087905]You're quite pretentious, aren't you.[/QUOTE]
What makes you say that Dr Bob?
I won't be presumptuous either, enlighten me.
[QUOTE=H4ngman;29059795]I don't know wether it will live up to the hype or the expectations, but I don't trust sqare enyx to be able to handle this game the was fans of the original would be pleased with. The more they talk, the more suspicious I get. From what I've seen and heared so far they are highlighting gameplay features. Look, you can go invisible, look we have fancy 3rd person insta-kill animations, look there is cover based 3rd person combat and we made some pre-rendered sequences to showcast this stuff.
But then I remember DE 1 and how the action mechanics were garbage compared to other shooters of the era, but it was still incredibly great for the story and atmosphere as well as your freedom to choose how to solve a mission. From what I have seen they might as well add some 'press A to solve stealthily, press B to solve violently and mangle the analog stick to solve with some gimmick'-meachanic.[/QUOTE]
Well, clearly you have basic observation skills. Yes, they are showing off features in the game. Every developer does it. They can't show too much without spoiling either the storyline, or some features that they want us to find and experiment with. What they have shown us is to portray how the basics work, what new things are available gameplay wise. And it does look good. But they cannot really show much more than that without risking giving away a storyline.
Plus they have to make the game accessible, so it will, you know? sell? Playing Deus Ex today shows how badly the controls and gameplay mechanics have aged. It doesn't control great, it feels clunky to play. It wouldn't sell on a modern market. If they have to lower it to a normal shooting system for gunplay, instead of that odd "Stay still and target something for a minute to hit" system, then so be it. At least it will sell and get more positive reviews.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;29088351]Well, clearly you have basic observation skills. Yes, they are showing off features in the game. Every developer does it. They can't show too much without spoiling either the storyline, or some features that they want us to find and experiment with. What they have shown us is to portray how the basics work, what new things are available gameplay wise. And it does look good. But they cannot really show much more than that without risking giving away a storyline.[/quote]
You could argue that the reason they're not showing anything advanced is because the "basics" is as far as the complexity of level design and game mechanics goes, and that they're using "We don't want to spoil the game for you bros" as an excuse to hide their shame. But I'm not going to argue that since I already have, I don't see why they just can't take a later sequence out of context and show us how you can approach it in multiple different ways, be damned with their tutorial level and that one combat sequence.
I'm sure I'm wrong to some degree, I hope.
[quote]Plus they have to make the game accessible, so it will, you know? sell?[/quote]
I'm aware that selling their game is the primary goal, or at least on an equal level with creating a good game (:v:), but I can't help but feel disappointed that they would dilute the game for greater appeal. I'm valid in my disappointment in that respect am I not? It's a decline for sure, but not a lost cause, it has the potential to exceed the quality of the original Deus Ex, just probably not by besting the original game in it's areas of excellence. I'm glad that Eidos is at least trying to go in a similar direction to the original game though, rather than going in a totally different direction and piggybacking on the fame of the name of Deus Ex.
[quote]Playing Deus Ex today shows how badly the controls and gameplay mechanics have aged.[/quote]
Except they have not, they're as functional as they were the day they were released, and there hasn't really been another game released since that has bested Deus Ex in terms of being an FPSRPG. If you're judging Deus Ex as an FPS game, then you are correct in making the observation that the controls are clunky and the mechanics are poor, but you are wrong in judging Deus Ex as an FPS alone, as it is not solely and FPS, but an FPSRPG, and the mechanics present are extremely relevant and functional taking that into consideration.
[quote]It doesn't control great, it feels clunky to play. It wouldn't sell on a modern market. If they have to lower it to a normal shooting system for gunplay, instead of that odd "Stay still and target something for a minute to hit" system, then so be it. At least it will sell and get more positive reviews.[/QUOTE]
I'm disappointed that you would say that, because success of the streamlined mechanics will only mean that in a potential future sequel we will see even more "streamlining". Oh, also the stand still for a minute to hit something system only mattered so long as your abilities were of a low level, you could better run around shooting accurately if you allocated points to the skill that corresponded to the weapon you were using.
I have no expectations for this game so when I play it my expectations will be met.
Its just a matter of how much higher it goes to be above my expectations IMO
[QUOTE=Jericho_Rus;29089594]ohboyherewegoagain.jpg[/QUOTE]
Don't be that way. :v:
At least it isn't like last time where we were all ill mannered towards each other, if anything it's not so much petty arguing as it is discussion.
I'm not going to get into an argument again, but I do want to address these key points at least.
[QUOTE=Riutet;29088920]IExcept they have not, they're as functional as they were the day they were released, and there hasn't really been another game released since that has bested Deus Ex in terms of being an FPSRPG. If you're judging Deus Ex as an FPS game, then you are correct in making the observation that the controls are clunky and the mechanics are poor, but you are wrong in judging Deus Ex as an FPS alone, as it is not solely and FPS, but an FPSRPG, and the mechanics present are extremely relevant and functional taking that into consideration.[/QUOTE]
Compared to the feel of quite a few more modern FPSRPG games (not the best examples, but Oblivion, New Vegas and the likes are of a similar style). Yes, it is fairly clunky, the controls don't feel smooth in some way I can't really describe. At lot of this is subjective, yes, but it is still valid feedback on the game. As a FPSRPG, the functionality is still good, it does everything it should from what I have played so far, and who's to say I was judging it as an FPS alone? Making assumptions like that is pretty dumb.
[QUOTE=Riutet;29088920]I'm disappointed that you would say that, because success of the streamlined mechanics will only mean that in a potential future sequel we will see even more "streamlining". Oh, also the stand still for a minute to hit something system only mattered so long as your abilities were of a low level, you could better run around shooting accurately if you allocated points to the skill that corresponded to the weapon you were using.[/QUOTE]
Streamlining doesn't necessarily mean removing features or dumbing it down, it could just be them refining the control scheme to stop you having to reach multiple keys in awkward places by making them more contextual. I personally found the accuracy thing in Deus Ex really, really intrusive and immersion breaking, maybe if it didn't take quite as long, or wasn't as harsh it would make sense. It has made the first level or so really, really annoying to do as dealing with enemies becomes a chore.
Plus I don't think I've been told the way to level skills yet, I am still fairly early into the game :v:
[QUOTE=H4ngman;29059795]I don't know wether it will live up to the hype or the expectations, but I don't trust sqare enyx to be able to handle this game the was fans of the original would be pleased with. The more they talk, the more suspicious I get. From what I've seen and heared so far they are highlighting gameplay features. Look, you can go invisible, look we have fancy 3rd person insta-kill animations, look there is cover based 3rd person combat and we made some pre-rendered sequences to showcast this stuff.
But then I remember DE 1 and how the action mechanics were garbage compared to other shooters of the era, but it was still incredibly great for the story and atmosphere as well as your freedom to choose how to solve a mission. From what I have seen they might as well add some 'press A to solve stealthily, press B to solve violently and mangle the analog stick to solve with some gimmick'-meachanic.[/QUOTE]
i dont trust squenix to develop this well either
especially since they're not developing it
[QUOTE=hexpunK;29090853]Compared to the feel of quite a few more modern FPSRPG games (not the best examples, but Oblivion, New Vegas and the likes are of a similar style). Yes, it is fairly clunky, the controls don't feel smooth in some way I can't really describe.[/quote]
In terms of movement, Oblivion and Fallout 3/New Vegas did feel smoother when you were moving (actually felt a little bit too floaty), but Deus Ex's movement feels about as smooth as Quake once you're adjusted. In terms of melee combat, I can see where you're coming from, the level of reach you have is deceptively short and you have to be closer than what you think to land a hit which lends to making the game seem clunky although really it's pretty smooth. The animations and movement of the enemies are quite rightly clunky looking, it's an old game. How high you could jump was again, deceptive, it seemed like the height at which you could jump was higher than it actually was, so you spent a fair bit of time early on trying to climb up a crate that it looked like you could jump up on easily. I won't deny the game does look clunky, and seems clunky for a short while, but once you adjust, it pretty damn smooth.
[quote]and who's to say I was judging it as an FPS alone? Making assumptions like that is pretty dumb.[/quote]
Notice I said "if", I was unsure how you were judging it.
[quote]Streamlining doesn't necessarily mean removing features or dumbing it down, it could just be them refining the control scheme to stop you having to reach multiple keys in awkward places by making them more contextual. I personally found the accuracy thing in Deus Ex really, really intrusive and immersion breaking, maybe if it didn't take quite as long, or wasn't as harsh it would make sense. It has made the first level or so really, really annoying to do as dealing with enemies becomes a chore.[/quote]
It's true that streamlining doesn't necessarily mean dumbing down, like the changes made to Crysis 2 wherein you press shift for Maximum Speed, Q for Maximum Armour, hold Space for Maximum Strength when jumping and hold V for Maximum Strength when Punching, oh and E for Stealth, meant that I ended up using much more than just stealth, despite the new issues created I felt it worked much better. I'm not against streamlining if it creates a better result than the original method, I'm against streamlining when it removes features that either worked perfectly before, or removes features that didn't quite work before but had the potential to given some extra work.
HR has a good example of this, they've removed melee entirely and instead replaced it with a button prompt, which is insulting both because melee was awesome and worked great in Deus Ex 1 (dragon tooth sword was overpowered though :v:) and systems that take control out of your hands to show your character doing all the work are lame no matter what way you try to spin it in that respect.
It's unfortunate though that all too often whenever a development studio or someone speaking on their behalf mentions that a feature has been streamlined, that it usually does mean that it's going to be ruined/removed/broken/not as functional as it was previously.
[quote]Plus I don't think I've been told the way to level skills yet, I am still fairly early into the game :v:[/QUOTE]
All points into swimming, you can trust me. :smug:
[QUOTE=Riutet;29078852]In general, the minimum level of quality from your average game is much higher than that of the average game in the past, however the quality of the cream of the crop is much lower than of the cream of the crop of the past. This generally holds true, else why have we not seen the next Planescape? The next Deus Ex? The next Thief? The next Grim Fandango? The next Fallout?
What we get now not only hardly manages to compare to the great games of the past, it also doesn't do what it should be doing, exceeding the quality of games of the past by being revolutionary for the time it's released. Look at Fallout 3 for example, it was a huge decline from the past games, it should have been a modern re-imagining of the series, doing things the creators only could have dreamed of doing back then, but the end product actually had not only significantly less RPG elements, it was also kind of an average game if you were judging it as a game that wasn't an RPG, this was a game that won many many awards bear in mind. This is such a common problem. Not that all modern games are like this though, just the rate at which a remarkable game comes along has significantly decreased.[/QUOTE]
What we get now for the "cream of the crop" is of pretty high subjective quality, just as the days of yesteryear. Now, what you may not like or get about games these days is that, people like them, even the people making them do. It's funny you bring up Fallout 3 as a bad game that wins awards. It wasn't a bad game. Not even an average one. It may have been buggy and broken from the Fallout world in a few ways, but honestly, if that's your concern, I find it a little less important than some. RPG has changed, as a genre, as a term, as a way to structure a game, you can't say it's an objective issue either, it's really not. You're free to disagree with me on the quality of the game, to you, it can be a terrible game judged on subjective standards to deem it so terrible. I have no problem with that and no desire to convince you otherwise, I simply maintain that any and all judgement is made subjectively.
[editline]10th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Riutet;29079615]Do we have to do this argument about the distinction between objective criticism and subjectivity again?
It's a stupid argument in that we shouldn't have to do it, and HumanAbyss will just come in and claim objectivity is impossible again, and then I'll point out that the objective quality can be ascertained through looking at the features a game possesses, the quality and success of them and how they measure relative to other games, and that the objective quality of a game doesn't stop you from enjoying a game subjectively, and then we'll argue for a bit and then Generic.Monk will come in and say something about me which will get him 7 winners. Can we just not do that?[/QUOTE]
Objectivity is impossible... You see X as X. I see X as Y. There is no way you can possibly prove me wrong. You don't know what I see, so you can't tell me with objective certainty that's not what I see. But I can't tell you you're seeing X, I think I'm seeing Y, we both see differently. But one of us is telling the other one that the Y doesn't exist. Subjectivity is the only way to go, you can't believe that your senses are infallible and that they can present to you an objective view of the world. The genre of RPG can be judged many different way on many different merits, so how can your one answer as to what an RPG objectively is be the only answer? It can't.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29092943]What we get now for the "cream of the crop" is of pretty high subjective quality, just as the days of yesteryear. Now, what you may not like or get about games these days is that, people like them, even the people making them do. It's funny you bring up Fallout 3 as a bad game that wins awards. It wasn't a bad game. Not even an average one. It may have been buggy and broken from the Fallout world in a few ways, but honestly, if that's your concern, I find it a little less important than some. RPG has changed, as a genre, as a term, as a way to structure a game, you can't say it's an objective issue either, it's really not. You're free to disagree with me on the quality of the game, to you, it can be a terrible game judged on subjective standards to deem it so terrible. I have no problem with that and no desire to convince you otherwise, I simply maintain that any and all judgement is made subjectively.[/quote]
I judge it as an RPG, and I judge it based on how well it improves upon/expands/implements the Fallout formula. When I judge it as a Fallout game, it ranks as terrible both in my opinion, and arguably objectively. If I were to judge it on a different merit as a different game, pretend it's not trying to be a Fallout series game or an RPG, then it's a somewhat quirky exploration game with largely irrelevant stats and passable shooting, whether you enjoy that or not is down to the individual, but if it claims to be a Fallout game and an RPG I'm going to judge it as such.
The Fallout series is a dog show, Fallout 3 is cat, it's a very well groomed and obedient cat that's good for what it is, but it's in a dog show, and it's a cat.
[quote]Objectivity is impossible... You see X as X. I see X as Y. There is no way you can possibly prove me wrong. You don't know what I see, so you can't tell me with objective certainty that's not what I see. But I can't tell you you're seeing X, I think I'm seeing Y, we both see differently. But one of us is telling the other one that the Y doesn't exist. Subjectivity is the only way to go, you can't believe that your senses are infallible and that they can present to you an objective view of the world.[/quote]
But objectivity is possible. Look at it this way, The Witcher 1, the combat system was pretty bad, nearly everyone agrees because it WAS bad, it lacked any real depth and was essentially a rhythm minigame that improved slightly on hard because you had to play like a Witcher by preparing alchemic potions to better survive the combat. Some people say they enjoyed it for what it is, but everyone regardless of whether they enjoyed it or not agrees it was a poor combat system.
You can quantify why it's a bad system, not just say why you yourself didn't personally enjoy it, I myself didn't actually mind it but I'm not going to say it wasn't bad, because it was, and in a way you can measure.
Another analogy, let's imagine there's a chair, one of it's legs are broken. Person A points out, "That chair leg is broken, therefore the chair itself is broken or at the very least, poor at fulfilling it's purpose."
Can you argue that Person A is wrong? Person B strolls in to find Person A making factual statements to himself, "I disagree Person A, I myself enjoy the sensation of terror that comes over me whenever I lean back on that chair and almost fall over and injure myself." Person B is right (but really only in regards to himself) in his subjective opinion that broken chairs are enjoyable and not broken. But Person A is also right in his statement that the chair happens to be broken, and in a way that you can't really disagree with, only state why the fault is of no concern to you. Person A is being objective.
[quote]The genre of RPG can be judged many different way on many different merits, so how can your one answer as to what an RPG objectively is be the only answer? It can't.[/QUOTE]
By judging a game based on how well it satisfies the criteria for being an RPG, judging a game based on whether or not it expands/exceeds the success (design wise) of other RPGs, and by judging a sequel based on how well it improves upon/expands the design principles of the previous games etc. Don't be fooled into the line of thinking that RPG takes on many meanings, it doesn't, there merely exists many elements as to what constitutes an RPG, the saturation and successful implementation of those elements into a game determine how much of an RPG the game is and how good of an RPG it is.
[QUOTE=Riutet;29094563]I judge it as an RPG, and I judge it based on how well it improves upon/expands/implements the Fallout formula. When I judge it as a Fallout game, it ranks as terrible both in my opinion, and arguably objectively. If I were to judge it on a different merit as a different game, pretend it's not trying to be a Fallout series game or an RPG, then it's a somewhat quirky exploration game with largely irrelevant stats and passable shooting, whether you enjoy that or not is down to the individual, but if it claims to be a Fallout game and an RPG I'm going to judge it as such.
The Fallout series is a dog show, Fallout 3 is cat, it's a very well groomed and obedient cat that's good for what it is, but it's in a dog show, and it's a cat.
But objectivity is possible. Look at it this way, The Witcher 1, the combat system was pretty bad, nearly everyone agrees because it WAS bad, it lacked any real depth and was essentially a rhythm minigame that improved slightly on hard because you had to play like a Witcher by preparing alchemic potions to better survive the combat. Some people say they enjoyed it for what it is, but everyone regardless of whether they enjoyed it or not agrees it was a poor combat system.
You can quantify why it's a bad system, not just say why you yourself didn't personally enjoy it, I myself didn't actually mind it but I'm not going to say it wasn't bad, because it was, and in a way you can measure.
Another analogy, let's imagine there's a chair, one of it's legs are broken. Person A points out, "That chair leg is broken, therefore the chair itself is broken or at the very least, poor at fulfilling it's purpose."
Can you argue that Person A is wrong? Person B strolls in to find Person A making factual statements to himself, "I disagree Person A, I myself enjoy the sensation of terror that comes over me whenever I lean back on that chair and almost fall over and injure myself." Person B is right (but really only in regards to himself) in his subjective opinion that broken chairs are enjoyable and not broken. But Person A is also right in his statement that the chair happens to be broken, and in a way that you can't really disagree with, only state why the fault is of no concern to you. Person A is being objective.
By judging a game based on how well it satisfies the criteria for being an RPG, judging a game based on whether or not it expands/exceeds the success (design wise) of other RPGs, and by judging a sequel based on how well it improves upon/expands the design principles of the previous games etc. Don't be fooled into the line of thinking that RPG takes on many meanings, it doesn't, there merely exists many elements as to what constitutes an RPG, the saturation and successful implementation of those elements into a game determine how much of an RPG the game is and how good of an RPG it is.[/QUOTE]
But here's the rub
What if that chair you see with a broken leg, really doesn't have a broken leg? I really can't explain this to you better, perception is fallible, to trust perception fully and to declare that, Factually you know something to be a globally held and universal truth in such a world where your perception is fallible is utterly impossible to me. Yes, I fully see your point about the chair and about the game and I am glad you went to such lengths to actually give me a real argument, :respek:.
But again, I just have to say, Fallout 3 isn't a bad game objectively at all. You can declare it to be missing "this" and "that", and as you say an RPG only has one meaning, well, really bro, things never have just one meaning. There's 6 billion people on the planet, if, as a thought experiment, we were to pretend they were all gamers and ask each and every one of them what they feel an RPG is, or any genre, or anything on any subject, well... You're not going to get back an objective truth. You're going to get back 6 billion subjective views, and even the creator of RPG's opinion on what an RPG is is just that, an opinion. The idea is seen from a billion angles but it is known by none. All I'm getting at is, you have your perception, and that's it, to say or pretend to know the objective and "true" nature of any object is beyond us due to the nature of perception. While we can group things and can declare things to be one or the other, and honestly, we have to do this at a base level in order to survive and not go crazy, our best guess is usually what we're left with.
When it comes to things like a video game, or any form of artistic pursuit(and I do call games art in some cases), while there are categories and ways to break something down, an experience is truly subjective, and all criteria is subjective, it may be disagreeable or even seem wrong, but that's just the problem with subjectivity. To quantify and qualify something down to a point where you know the truth about it, I don't know if that's even possible frankly. When it comes to this, I'm glad you have your criteria for what makes a game a certain genre and what makes it good and what makes it whatever it is, but those are your criteria, not mine, and not someone elses. They're what you perceive to be the reigning ideas and characteristics in what is a very large overview of a very large topic filled with variety.
As for the witcher example, you bring up a few good points. You can say it was a very shallow combat system, you can say it is a rhythm minigame, or what not, and you could declare it was poor, but to some people having a rhythm minigame as a combat system is far less poor than it is to you. You can see it from a lot of angles, but you don't know what it is, everyone has to make up their own mind, subjectivity.
I hope if this argument continues we can keep it somewhat civil.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29100666]But here's the rub
What if that chair you see with a broken leg, really doesn't have a broken leg?[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZfNwQiEphc&feature=related[/media]
[QUOTE=Riutet;29100724][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZfNwQiEphc&feature=related[/media][/QUOTE]
do me a favour and read over the extended reply please, I didn't get to type all I wanted at first.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29100666]What if that chair you see with a broken leg, really doesn't have a broken leg? I really can't explain this to you better, perception is fallible, to trust perception fully and to declare that, Factually you know something to be a globally held and universal truth in such a world where your perception is fallible is utterly impossible to me. Yes, I fully see your point about the chair and about the game and I am glad you went to such lengths to actually give me a real argument, :respek:.[/quote]
Of course perception is fallable, I of all people know that all too well. I don't just take my view as the final word on everything, I try and get a good aggregate view by hearing out what others have to say. For example, Pathologic, hated that game for the longest time until RPS did a 3-part article on it which shed totally new light on things, it didn't actually change what was known about the game, but it gave me a new appreciation for what it was, it was still a terribly grinding game with an incomprehensible English translation and some seriously glitchy graphics, that much was still true, but I understood why it was intentionally that way (with the exception of the translation and graphics). I'm not immune to reason or alternate views, and I won't judge a game without the proper level of consideration and discourse beforehand.
I'll admit that it's somewhat dickwaddish to claim that my conclusion is 100 percent objectively true, but I won't admit that my conclusion does not reach something approaching objectivity considering the methodology by which I come to it, and that I take effort to disregard my own opinion when reaching it.
[quote]But again, I just have to say, Fallout 3 isn't a bad game objectively at all. You can declare it to be missing "this" and "that", and as you say an RPG only has one meaning, well, really bro, things never have just one meaning.[/quote]
I know, that's why we have sub-genres. Action-RPGs, sRPGs, jRPGs, Dragon Age 2s. There are many different criterias from which you can judge what a game is and choose how to judge it, but that does not mean that everyone's view on what constitutes an RPG is correct, in the same way that belief does not reshape definition, something does not change meaning simply because someone thinks it means something else. RPG as a classification is flexible, but not so flexible that it can apply to anything, and there are key observable and measurable elements that are present in a game that determine whether it is an RPG (and of what type) and to what level of quality it is.
I think a lot of confusion is generated because the RPG genre is quite symbiotic in nature, and in assaulting the poor quality of the RPG elements found in a game like Fallout 3 and calling it a bad RPG, it's often perceived as an attack on all elements and views of that game.
[quote]You're going to get back 6 billion subjective views, and even the creator of RPG's opinion on what an RPG is is just that, an opinion.[/quote]
Actually a single creator's opinion would be the only valid view on what an RPG is provided he understood his creation fully. All other opinions would be derivatives or wrong. You can't honestly tell me though that people who think that an RPG is a game with dialogue or fantasy are valid in their belief. A single creator could rightly say, "This is what RPGs are or once only were." Those who describe the original idea, but with expansions or elaborated mechanics that use the initial principles as direction would be describing a progressive RPG. Those who describe the original idea, but with expansions or elaborated mechanics that don't stay true to the original principles of what constitutes an RPG would be describing something like an action-RPG. And those who herp their derp and talk about dragons and romance would just be wrong.
[quote]When it comes to things like a video game, or any form of artistic pursuit(and I do call games art in some cases), while there are categories and ways to break something down, an experience is truly subjective, and all criteria is subjective, it may be disagreeable or even seem wrong, but that's just the problem with subjectivity. To quantify and qualify something down to a point where you know the truth about it, I don't know if that's even possible frankly. When it comes to this, I'm glad you have your criteria for what makes a game a certain genre and what makes it good and what makes it whatever it is, but those are your criteria, not mine, and not someone elses. They're what you perceive to be the reigning ideas and characteristics in what is a very large overview of a very large topic filled with variety.[/quote]
I won't argue experience, I won't say "you didn't have fun playing this game because look here I can quantify why this game is a bad RPG", because I can't. So I don't.
[quote]As for the witcher example, you bring up a few good points. You can say it was a very shallow combat system, you can say it is a rhythm minigame, or what not, and you could declare it was poor, but to some people having a rhythm minigame as a combat system is far less poor than it is to you. You can see it from a lot of angles, but you don't know what it is, everyone has to make up their own mind, subjectivity.[/quote]
Yeah people who enjoy rhythm minigames would probably be in their elements playing The Witcher. But what must be taken into consideration is that The Witcher is supposed to be an RPG, and when your stats matter less than clicking to a rhythm... the execution doesn't suit the purpose and you can come to the conclusion that it was a failure in that respect.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;29145885][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdERgfgB9Yc&feature=player_embedded[/media][/QUOTE]
On the site they give you at the end, there is a game. For people who don't want to play it. Here is what you get for finishing it.
[media]http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/1174/armblade.jpg[/media]
[media]http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/202/claymorem.jpg[/media]
[media]http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/6327/cloak.jpg[/media]
[media]http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/1791/dermalarmor.jpg[/media]
-wrong thread- ughh
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi1d_tVLODU[/media]
Go to 5:55.
• 1300 props to clutter the game's environments.
• Elements of cyber-punk, the Renaissance and noir all blended together.
• Black represents cyber-punk and sorrow.
• Gold represents the Renaissance and hope.
• Two costumes for Adam; urban (trenchcoat) and combat (exposed armour).
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29092943]What we get now for the "cream of the crop" is of pretty high subjective quality, just as the days of yesteryear. Now, what you may not like or get about games these days is that, people like them, even the people making them do. It's funny you bring up Fallout 3 as a bad game that wins awards. It wasn't a bad game. Not even an average one. It may have been buggy and broken from the Fallout world in a few ways, but honestly, if that's your concern, I find it a little less important than some. RPG has changed, as a genre, as a term, as a way to structure a game, you can't say it's an objective issue either, it's really not. You're free to disagree with me on the quality of the game, to you, it can be a terrible game judged on subjective standards to deem it so terrible. I have no problem with that and no desire to convince you otherwise, I simply maintain that any and all judgement is made subjectively.
[editline]10th April 2011[/editline]
Objectivity is impossible... You see X as X. I see X as Y. There is no way you can possibly prove me wrong. You don't know what I see, so you can't tell me with objective certainty that's not what I see. But I can't tell you you're seeing X, I think I'm seeing Y, we both see differently. But one of us is telling the other one that the Y doesn't exist. Subjectivity is the only way to go, you can't believe that your senses are infallible and that they can present to you an objective view of the world. The genre of RPG can be judged many different way on many different merits, so how can your one answer as to what an RPG objectively is be the only answer? It can't.[/QUOTE]
Fallout 3 was a terrible terrible game, running from a lack of decent graphics, buggy code, awful storyline, a sledgehammer that tried to give you some suspension of disbelief and a slew of other things. It's a meh game viewed alone, but it's an awful transgression when compared to fallout 1 and 2. Fallout 3 is unnecessarily clunky in gameplay to a level that's almost hair raising and has so little content in it, it sometimes hurts. NV was a bit better. It improved the story department at least somewhat as well as player consequences. But it suffers from the same issues in other regards.
Objectively I sometimes believe that the people that consider it a great game only do so due to not having ever played another non-bethesda RPG or FPSRPG hybrid.
To an absolutely absurd level. The shift between DX1 and DX:IW does not even compare in that regard.
Because DX:IW was at least a good game when viewed completely seperately. While it did suffer from showing up on the original xbox as well, it tried to get by.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;29172499]Fallout 3 was a terrible terrible game, running from a lack of decent graphics, buggy code, awful storyline, a sledgehammer that tried to give you some suspension of disbelief and a slew of other things. It's a meh game viewed alone, but it's an awful transgression when compared to fallout 1 and 2. Fallout 3 is unnecessarily clunky in gameplay to a level that's almost hair raising and has so little content in it, it sometimes hurts. NV was a bit better. It improved the story department at least somewhat as well as player consequences. But it suffers from the same issues in other regards.
Objectively I sometimes believe that the people that consider it a great game only do some due to not having ever played another non-bethesda RPG or FPSRPG hybrid.
To an absolutely absurd level. The shift between DX1 and DX:IW does not even compare in that regard.
Because DX:IW was at least a good game is viewed completely seperately. While it did suffer from showing up on the original xbox as well, it tried to get by.[/QUOTE]
Holy shit, can't agree more. Rated winner.
Oh well, another person convinced that he knows the truth and can't be wrong, I don't really give a fuck, it's really not worth arguing with people who are convinced with a sort of conviction that the way they see things is the way things are.
I enjoyed Fallout 3 despite it's inherit shittyness that you're all talking about and found that New Vegas remedied almost all those problems. But [b]I'm factually wrong because you say so, because you say so.[/b] Great fucking logic.
and of course, you can't not insult my taste in games saying I must not have played any outside of Fallout 3 in order to enjoy it. Really? That's by far the fucking worst argument or ad hominem i've ever heard.
[B]Ask JJB - Will Adam's glasses always be activated?[/B]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpQazugPDHk&feature=youtu.be[/media]
Cyberpunk Dramatic Glasses Removal.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c31PhzVwnfc[/media]
Object highlighting is now an option, victory!
I definitely won't be playing with highlighted objects.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
