[QUOTE=The Stills;43626711]This doesn't make sense. There is always an element of subjectivity when analysing a video game. Sure a large part of the mechanical and technical elements of a game can be criticised objectively, but it just doesn't matter if you don't like the game in the first place.
Like sure, Dark Souls is technically sound, it's a solid game. But it just didn't have any redeeming qualities to me (except for the aesthetic maybe, I did like the tone it gave off).[/QUOTE]
There shouldn't be any subjectivity when analysing video games. Liking a video game doesn't make it good and disliking a video game doesn't make it bad.
I mean you said yourself, you didn't like Dark Souls, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a solid game.
I thought the ending to Gone Home was very cliche. Which kind of ruined it for me...
[QUOTE=Ragekipz;43628375]There shouldn't be any subjectivity when analysing video games. Liking a video game doesn't make it good and disliking a video game doesn't make it bad.
I mean you said yourself, you didn't like Dark Souls, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a solid game.[/QUOTE]
That's a very dull way to look at video game critique, any person, even if they try their hardest will inevitably insert some of their own subjective bias into their writing and thinking.
And you can feel that a game is bad even if technically it is good.
For example, the only metroidvania castlevania game I like is Symphony of the Night. Now if you look at metacritic for the various handheld metroidvania Castlevanias they're all around the 80-90% mark (except for maybe Circle of the Moon), but I don't like any of them. And that's purely because none of them [i]feel[/i] the same as SotN, something is off about their movement, combat, tone or something, something that I can't really put into words that just doesn't gel with me like Symphony of the Night did. In my opinion, because they felt bad to me, these are bad games. But obviously to other people, they are not, given the response they have on metacritic. The games are completely functional, I didn't feel like the mechanics of them were broken, it was just that they didn't feel [i]right[/i] to me, and that's something that's purely subjective.
[QUOTE=The Stills;43628440]That's a very dull way to look at video game critique, any person, even if they try their hardest will inevitably insert some of their own subjective bias into their writing and thinking.
And you can feel that a game is bad even if technically it is good.
For example, the only metroidvania castlevania game I like is Symphony of the Night. Now if you look at metacritic for the various handheld metroidvania Castlevanias they're all around the 80-90% mark (except for maybe Circle of the Moon), but I don't like any of them. And that's purely because none of them [i]feel[/i] the same as SotN, something is off about their movement, combat, tone or something, something that I can't really put into words that just doesn't gel with me like Symphony of the Night did. In my opinion, because they felt bad to me, these are bad games. But obviously to other people, they are not, given the response they have on metacritic. The games are completely functional, I didn't feel like the mechanics of them were broken, it was just that they didn't feel [i]right[/i] to me, and that's something that's purely subjective.[/QUOTE]
"Feeling" that a game is bad doesn't make it bad.
Metacritic is a compilation of opinions, it doesn't serve to gauge if a game is good, it just serves to figure out that many people liked/disliked the game. And saying that a game is good just because many people liked is an ad populum fallacy.
But a metacritic value is made from the aggregate of a number of critical reviews, and by your logic critical analysis of video games can only be purely objective in nature.
So by your logic, metacritic is a perfect way to gauge whether a game is good or not.
[QUOTE=The Stills;43628519]But a metacritic value is made from the aggregate of a number of critical reviews, and by your logic critical analysis of video games can only be purely objective in nature.
So by your logic, metacritic is a perfect way to gauge whether a game is good or not.[/QUOTE]
Except that, like I said, metacriticis just a compilation of opinions. While there are people that go into a technical level most of them are just "I LIKED IT 8.0".
I installed Gone Home after buying it for 99p, I found everything in the house including behind every locked door, I picked up and swirled every bottle and piece of crap around and thought the level of detail was pretty cool, got the end and uninstalled it.
I mean at least with Dear Esther it's like going on a walk with some very pretty scenery, and I've actually payed thought it a few times just because of that. But with all the accolades Gone Home keeps getting, it's either part of some accolade club or I'm completely missing the point.
Whenever anyone says "I like this game" I will be there to say "No. Badgame." I will travel to the ends of the earth voicing my displeasure, as I feel that I am entitled to a future where everybody agrees with me. This is the burden I will carry forever...
[QUOTE=Memobot;43628862]I installed Gone Home after buying it for 99p, I found everything in the house including behind every locked door, I picked up and swirled every bottle and piece of crap around and thought the level of detail was pretty cool, got the end and uninstalled it.
I mean at least with Dear Esther it's like going on a walk with some very pretty scenery, and I've actually payed thought it a few times just because of that. But with all the accolades Gone Home keeps getting, it's either part of some accolade club or I'm completely missing the point.[/QUOTE]
The reason i will always Praise Dear Esther and The Stanley Parable is Replayablity.
Its a absolute death sentence for a game that has such a short gameplay span, it took me a good 6 hours to truly dive into The Stanley Parable, and complete most of the endings. Dear Esther as well at least provided some reason for replaying, in being that the dialogue did fill in the story on your second time through. (Not to mention the same voice actor is in BOTH games. )
Its like this sort of story content is NEW to video games. Its been around since the HL2 Version of Dear Esther, which YES. I did play. My only regret with Dear Esther is that it never tried to do anything daring. Games like The Stanley Parable are much deeper than Gone Home, thats why it deserves more praise in my eyes. Its not just a "EMOTIONAL" Story, which the trailer even parodied with "Raphael" Mode. If this genre is going to expand, i think it should follow in the footsteps of The Stanley Parable, because it completely understands what it is as a medium, its not just a story like Gone Home is.
Its almost ironic.
[video=youtube;AZ-IcS7mRSk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ-IcS7mRSk[/video]
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;43629379]Whenever anyone says "I like this game" I will be there to say "No. Badgame." I will travel to the ends of the earth voicing my displeasure, as I feel that I am entitled to a future where everybody agrees with me. This is the burden I will carry forever...[/QUOTE]
Godspeed you magnificent bastard.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;43629379]Whenever anyone says "I like this game" I will be there to say "No. Badgame." I will travel to the ends of the earth voicing my displeasure, as I feel that I am entitled to a future where everybody agrees with me. This is the burden I will carry forever...[/QUOTE]
You should just hit the game on the nose with a rolled up newspaper and say "Bad game. Don't ever do that again!"
[QUOTE=Ragekipz;43628375]There shouldn't be any subjectivity when analysing video games. Liking a video game doesn't make it good and disliking a video game doesn't make it bad.
I mean you said yourself, you didn't like Dark Souls, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a solid game.[/QUOTE]
[t]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-spU9yAj3nYA/T0ZEvhF6oLI/AAAAAAAAAe4/YgIhwOnHupk/s1600/fun+is+just+a+buzzword.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=KennyAwsum;43629386]The reason i will always Praise Dear Esther and The Stanley Parable is Replayablity.
Its a absolute death sentence for a game that has such a short gameplay span, it took me a good 6 hours to truly dive into The Stanley Parable, and complete most of the endings. Dear Esther as well at least provided some reason for replaying, in being that the dialogue did fill in the story on your second time through. (Not to mention the same voice actor is in BOTH games. )
Its like this sort of story content is NEW to video games. Its been around since the HL2 Version of Dear Esther, which YES. I did play. My only regret with Dear Esther is that it never tried to do anything daring. Games like The Stanley Parable are much deeper than Gone Home, thats why it deserves more praise in my eyes. Its not just a "EMOTIONAL" Story, which the trailer even parodied with "Raphael" Mode. If this genre is going to expand, i think it should follow in the footsteps of The Stanley Parable, because it completely understands what it is as a medium, its not just a story like Gone Home is.
Its almost ironic.
[video=youtube;AZ-IcS7mRSk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ-IcS7mRSk[/video][/QUOTE]
you can't really compare stanley parable with dear esther/gone home
one of those is a meta satirical game
the two others are straight up stories
[editline]22nd January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Juniez;43630153][t]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-spU9yAj3nYA/T0ZEvhF6oLI/AAAAAAAAAe4/YgIhwOnHupk/s1600/fun+is+just+a+buzzword.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
the guy who wrote this has a point: games don't necessarily have to be fun, there's a whole lot of other emotions besides emotional fulfillment / fantasies to be sought after in games
for example Telltale's The Walking Dead was certainly not fun, yet that lack is what was part of the substance of the game and made it work
i really like the stanley parable but I don't think I would actually say it has any replay value considering the fact that it's meant to be played iteratively? like if you only get a single ending and then call it quits you haven't [I]really[/I] "played" the game. like starting from the beginning several times and getting multiple endings is really just part of a single contiguous experience
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;43630295]you can't really compare stanley parable with dear esther/gone home
one of those is a meta satirical game
the two others are straight up stories
[/QUOTE]
i always saw dear esther as a source engine tech demo (i think they advertise it as a tech demo too)
thats why half the people who got it didnt care about the story and cared more about how pretty the game is
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;43630295]y
the guy who wrote this has a point: games don't necessarily have to be fun, there's a whole lot of other emotions besides emotional fulfillment / fantasies to be sought after in games
for example Telltale's The Walking Dead was certainly not fun, yet that lack is what was part of the substance of the game and made it work[/QUOTE]
but the walking dead is enjoyable
anything that you enjoy/find it enjoyable is FUN
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;43630295]you can't really compare stanley parable with dear esther/gone home
one of those is a meta satirical game
the two others are straight up stories
[editline]22nd January 2014[/editline]
the guy who wrote this has a point: games don't necessarily have to be fun, there's a whole lot of other emotions besides emotional fulfillment / fantasies to be sought after in games
for example Telltale's The Walking Dead was certainly not fun, yet that lack is what was part of the substance of the game and made it work[/QUOTE]
he has no point because he's implying that "fun" has no merit outside of a buzzword
[QUOTE=e_k_M;43630733]i always saw dear esther as a source engine tech demo (i think they advertise it as a tech demo too)
thats why half the people who got it didnt care about the story and cared more about how pretty the game is
but the walking dead is enjoyable
anything that you enjoy/find it enjoyable is FUN[/QUOTE]
fun is characterized as more of a lighthearted enjoyment - like amusement
the walking dead is certainly engaging and interesting but fun ..?
[QUOTE=Juniez;43631452]he has no point because he's implying that "fun" has no merit outside of a buzzword[/QUOTE]
Yes, but that's how it is. You see fun is subjective and individual. It's relative to your experience to the game. And that isn't an implication, it's a statement.
FUN does not make a game good. You can have fun but someone else may not. That would make a game both good and bad.
Okay I get the game has an interesting narrative which in itself is already a good thing but [I]twenty fucking euros[/I]
You can get Metal Gear Rising for that money, for crying out loud
Speaking of which brb buying metal gea rising
[QUOTE=BigPalooka;43624802]As long as Blood Dragon is on there somewhere.[/QUOTE]
The enjoyable parts of Blood Dragon weren't even the gameplay though it was all the writing, the gameplay was it's biggest weakness. You can't really decry a game for being all writing minimal gameplay but support one that had lots of gameplay just for the sake of having it.
(btw never played Gone Home cause yeah I can't get over how hipster it looks despite my friends promising it's not but Stanley Parable is amazing)
[QUOTE=Ragekipz;43631806]Yes, but that's how it is. You see fun is subjective and individual. It's relative to your experience to the game. And that isn't an implication, it's a statement.
FUN does not make a game good. You can have fun but someone else may not. That would make a game both good and bad.[/QUOTE]
Yes ! And that is why good and bad is subjective and entirely dependent on the users experience
Well/poorly written maybe
[QUOTE=Juniez;43632925]Yes ! And that is why good and bad is subjective and entirely dependent on the users experience
Well/poorly written maybe[/QUOTE]
No, a game is good based on it's own merits such as writting, art, music and so forth.
the narrative and story isnt interesting
i cant fathom how a lesbian coming of age story is interesting its like something that happens every day
is clicking on lampshades to reveal auditory facebook statuses now considered earthshattering
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;43632264]The enjoyable parts of Blood Dragon weren't even the gameplay though it was all the writing, the gameplay was it's biggest weakness. You can't really decry a game for being all writing minimal gameplay but support one that had lots of gameplay just for the sake of having it.
(btw never played Gone Home cause yeah I can't get over how hipster it looks despite my friends promising it's not but Stanley Parable is amazing)[/QUOTE]
I thought the gameplay in blood dragon was fabulous.
[QUOTE=Brt5470;43634786]I thought the gameplay in blood dragon was fabulous.[/QUOTE]
It had a perfect 80s montage. More than that we need not to mention. I wonder if they could've made it into a full game.
[QUOTE=Brt5470;43634786]I thought the gameplay in blood dragon was fabulous.[/QUOTE]
I mean it was just regular Far Cry 3 with a little more shooting. As much as people don't like every game being linear, a linear model would have suited it much better. Traversing the landscape wasn't as fun as FC3, was just annoying and they missed a great opportunity to make the environment more interesting a la Brutal Legend. The side missions were pretty pointless so I only played a couple. The titular blood dragons managed to be menacing but not really fun, big bullet sponges
Still loved it though
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
