Weltall Zero
Member
If you can't see you're the one projecting meaning into a literal advice to improve one's skills, I don't know what to tell you.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Poor, Obnoxious, Commonly Used Arguments In Defense of Games
- Thread starter HotHamBoy
- Start date
If you can't see you're the one projecting meaning into a literal advice to improve one's skills, I don't know what to tell you.
I wouldn't say that this is problematic in most cases.
Con't comment on StarFox as I haven't opened my copy yet, but back in the day there certainly was a rather long learning curve to a lot of Sega games.
Sega Rally 1995 for instance took quite a few hours before it actually clicked with me.
At first it looked more like I was playing a pinball game the way my car kept bouncing from one side of the track to the other.
Yet after quite a few hours over multiple days it finally clicked and up till this point it's still my favourite racing game ever.
Virtual On comes to mind as well.
Same with Ferrari 355 Challenge and NiGHTS into Dreams, not to even speak about Gun Valkyrie.
Then again, these are all games with infinite replayability, so I don't see any problem with having a tough control system to master.
Yep, this is pretty much THE knee-jerk response to any criticism of a game with dated visuals.
Personally, I feel like it's unnecessary, and I don't really mind that people dislike the thing, it only bothers me when they assume I'm just not smart enough (or whatever), and that's why I disagree with them. Another situation where this kind of stuff comes up a lot is when you criticize forced slow walking. Someone will inevitably assume you're just a moron incapable of doing anything but killing, and can't appreciate a nice story. Not that you just, you know, don't like forced slow walking.
It's especially ironic in cases like Furi, where I was actually very intrigued by the characters and world, I was surprisingly into it, but it's such a huge pain in the ass to backtrack and explore every nook and cranny to make sure I don't miss any optional dialogue. It punishes people who care about the story the most, those who don't will just take the shortest path to the next fight.
theprodigy
Member
"You only like it because of nostalgia"/"You only like it because it's new" when being compared to another game and "It's optional!"
Oh my god, this.
Zelda on the DS too. What a horrible hand-cramping experience that was.
finalflame
Banned
Git gud = practice. As an example, watching Overwatch streams, I see people in chat always asking streamers"HOW DO YOU GET SO GOOD?" and the answer is always "practice", because it's true, like with most things in life. Dedicated streamers tend to play hours and hours and hours a day of a given game, they're inevitably going to get good.
If you've played a mechanically complex game for only a few hours and are impatient because you're still not good at it, then maybe it's truly not for you, and that's ok. I've tried to help many people get into the Souls games by providing tips, tricks, explaining systems upfront that the game does not explain, etc, but they are just not interested in putting forth that much effort, and it's fine.
If you've played a mechanically complex game for only a few hours and are impatient because you're still not good at it, then maybe it's truly not for you, and that's ok. I've tried to help many people get into the Souls games by providing tips, tricks, explaining systems upfront that the game does not explain, etc, but they are just not interested in putting forth that much effort, and it's fine.
I hate this line and I know I've been guilty of this a few times myself. My game is acting up/not working "get it on platform X" or "works fine for me" does nothing to actually solve the problem. Although I found it hilarious when the Payday 2 guys told console owners to just get it on PC when they didn't fix it properly on consoles
IAmAnAgnostic
Member
"You can't criticize this game because you didn't play it for X hours!"
"If you hated the game so much, why did you play it for X hours, clearly you must have been enjoying the experience on some level!"
"If you hated the game so much, why did you play it for X hours, clearly you must have been enjoying the experience on some level!"
Tangled Up in Blue
Banned
IMO, the most obnoxious defense argument by far is the "If you don't like this game/movie/TV show/media, then you are obviously too stupid to understand it."
"You didn't like Game x? Then maybe you should go back to playing dudebro shooters since that's probably more your speed."
"You didn't like TV Show X? That's okay, it's just over your head."
"You didn't think Movie X was brilliant? Maybe it's just not for you. How about a nice Michael Bay film?"
So fucking arrogant and condescending.
"You didn't like Game x? Then maybe you should go back to playing dudebro shooters since that's probably more your speed."
"You didn't like TV Show X? That's okay, it's just over your head."
"You didn't think Movie X was brilliant? Maybe it's just not for you. How about a nice Michael Bay film?"
So fucking arrogant and condescending.
Empty Space
Member
In the case of something like Demon Souls I think when people use the word nostalgia that's them simply not articulating themselves well. They probably more mean to say since Demon Souls was that person's first exposure to the series it sits on a pedstal. It's not nostalgia in this case everyone usually just remembers their first of anything good more fondly. This is a bit different from nostalgia where the person's mind turns something greater than it is, because it was from happy memory they've held dear for a long time. I can totally see how it's easy to conflate the two concepts.
I mean sometimes it's probably nostalgia too. There's probably someone out there who played the game when they 14 or 15 to someone like that 2009 was a really long time ago.
I think "its optional" is sometimes valid.
I mean, DAI has pretty crappy multiplayer. So I don't play it. So its not really a problem. The game isn't worse than it would be if it simply had no multiplayer.
The vast abundance of mediocre side-quests on the other hand is a problem, however, because they do get in the way of enjoying the good bits of the game.
I mean, DAI has pretty crappy multiplayer. So I don't play it. So its not really a problem. The game isn't worse than it would be if it simply had no multiplayer.
The vast abundance of mediocre side-quests on the other hand is a problem, however, because they do get in the way of enjoying the good bits of the game.
Of course, but it's a valid reason for someone to not like something. Just like art style and sound track are valid reasons to not like a game.
Not every statement needs to have "in my opinion" as a qualifier, sometimes it's just assumed.
That's certainly better, but it's still dismissing a valid opinion with something that may or may not be true. Just look at the amount of "Souls veterans" (this is so cringeworthy to me) who think Bloodborne is the best in the series.
I feel like there's a better argument to make with "it was the first one you played" when people are talking about difficulty than just quality. And even then you have to be sure it actually was the first that person played. Which is almost never what happens.
Demon's Souls in particular is structurally very unique compared to the other Souls games, with the whole hub + levels thing. So people who prefer that to an interconnected world for whatever reason that I'll never understand, won't have any more refined game to choose over Demon's. It's a logical choice for them.
It comes down to what "the pillars of Souls games" are to each individual person. People who value build variety and PVP a lot more than I do will certainly think of Dark Souls II as a much stronger game than Bloodborne. But as someone who feels like the three pillars of Souls games are level design, boss fights and lore, Bloodborne resonated a lot with me, even though I do enjoy the PVP a lot, and agree with the criticism about Bloodborne's PVP.
InfiniteCombo
Banned
I'm usually fairly reasonable in my online discourse, and it takes a lot to get me pissed off about something. But drive-by "git gud" posts are fucking scum. It's a stupid meme and I hope it dies in a fire. It's literally zero value added in a discussion.
The problem is that often, no such good advice is given. Only drive by "git gud" nonsense.
There are many video game players of many different skill levels. Yes, with enough time, practice, and patience, any level/boss/whatever can be beaten. But not everyone can spare that amount of time.
Also, difficulty is a tricky thing. Difficulty that requires you to master mechanics is one thing; cheap or otherwise artificial difficulty (something I tend to find in a lot of NES games) is another.
Disclaimer: "git gud" has never been directed at me, and I even used it once in a humorous context (I created an LTTP of Yoshi's Island). However, I'm referring to the type that offers no help and is even condescending sometimes.
Well it kinda is true though. Although nowhere near 100 hours.
It's a very tough series to get into and a lot of people get turned off after the first couple of hours.
I myself started with Tri on Wii, liked it but never really loved it.
Then 3 Ultimate on 3DS, but it only really fully clicked with me with 4 Ultimate for some reason.
As strange as it seems, you need to get to a certain place where it actually does start getting fun. It's a very bad game is you're looking for instant gratification.
Nothing wrong with that though. :-/
The Wiimote was pretty damn awesome when a game implemented it right.
This reminds me of a recent thread, but it's more of an example of obnoxious behavior in defense of companies and publishers. It's that special kind of annoying behavior where a company/companies have been doing a scummy thing for a while and we simply become complacent and accepting of it. For example microtransactions, season passes etc.
But this thread in particular comes to mind.
Rex Novis: The Division's new brazenly deceitful ad campaign - a thread about a Kotaku article which talks about how a The Division ad campaign mislead people by using out of context quotes
So the OP focuses on two quotes from the article
-"Blows Destiny out of the Water" - Gamezone
-"Best New Franchise"- IGN
What's the problem with these two quotes? The problem is, Ubisoft used these two quotes out of context to make it seem like the two companies were singing the highest praises, when in actuality the first quote refers to The Division blowing Destiny's beta player number out of the water, and the second quote refers to IGN's best of E3 awards, which The Division won the best new franchise category..
Now in my mind, I think if this was some other company with not so much history of being scummy, like CDPR, or if this was some brand new scummy tactic the thread would have mostly been about having a good laugh at the expense of Ubisoft being their scummy selves once again. "Oh Ubisoft, never change." "Oh wow, I just looked at the real quotes, how shameless." Remember the 60FPS ad for Watch-Dogs on playstation that was then promptly removed? Publishers try for a cynical, deceitful approach, players notice, players call out the lies, and we all have a laugh and inject ourselves with a nice dose of reminder that some publishers will try shifty things.
But this thread's tone was different. A chunk of the posters made sure it was known they don't really care since it's not new, it happens everywhere. a chunk of the posters were defending and a chunk were laughing at ubisoft, and a chunk of the posters took to rummaging through OP's post history trying to find hidden motives and smoking gun posts that would expose his hatred for The Division and prove that he didn't make the thread in good faith.
Yet, it was my impression that OP made the thread for a simple reason: scummy tactic > deserves to be exposed, and it was met with such backlash that I almost couldn't believe it at the time.
Another case where some people entirely failed to focus on the actual scummy tactic and even ended up defending it were the Overwatch Loot Crate threads, including the Jimquisition one. The loot crates were pure RNG and prayed on people who just don't want to grind out levels to get a good chance to finally acquire a legendary skin they've been eyeing, especially since the game doesn't even give you the option to browse and buy. But why not give people an option? Why not make it more consumer-friendly? One defense was that you're not supposed to be enticed, you're not supposed to give a shit about the RNG system altogether because the true reward is getting better at the game. All that other stuff doesn't matter. But... It does matter. by default. It is an element of the game and you will have people who are interested in the skins and trinkets. it's simple math, 1+1. So since it is an element of the game and it exists, why not make it more player friendly?
I think the reason these two cases didn't result in complete condemnation of the scummy practices is because they've become so commonplace and we don't view them as a malign, foreign bodies as much as we did before. I think there's actually another Jimquisition where Jim warns us to always keep a vigilant eye because when companies smell the complacency, that's when they strike hard.
Because it just doesn't make sense.
A deceitful ad that misleads people - open and shut case, you expose it and you call it out. Consumer first. Right?
An RNG loot system that just isn't designed towards fair progression - alter it, change it, make it better for the player, because there are players that will be enticed by it, because it is an element of the game. Let's all be for this. Right?
So why the backlash?
But this thread in particular comes to mind.
Rex Novis: The Division's new brazenly deceitful ad campaign - a thread about a Kotaku article which talks about how a The Division ad campaign mislead people by using out of context quotes
So the OP focuses on two quotes from the article
-"Blows Destiny out of the Water" - Gamezone
-"Best New Franchise"- IGN
What's the problem with these two quotes? The problem is, Ubisoft used these two quotes out of context to make it seem like the two companies were singing the highest praises, when in actuality the first quote refers to The Division blowing Destiny's beta player number out of the water, and the second quote refers to IGN's best of E3 awards, which The Division won the best new franchise category..
Now in my mind, I think if this was some other company with not so much history of being scummy, like CDPR, or if this was some brand new scummy tactic the thread would have mostly been about having a good laugh at the expense of Ubisoft being their scummy selves once again. "Oh Ubisoft, never change." "Oh wow, I just looked at the real quotes, how shameless." Remember the 60FPS ad for Watch-Dogs on playstation that was then promptly removed? Publishers try for a cynical, deceitful approach, players notice, players call out the lies, and we all have a laugh and inject ourselves with a nice dose of reminder that some publishers will try shifty things.
But this thread's tone was different. A chunk of the posters made sure it was known they don't really care since it's not new, it happens everywhere. a chunk of the posters were defending and a chunk were laughing at ubisoft, and a chunk of the posters took to rummaging through OP's post history trying to find hidden motives and smoking gun posts that would expose his hatred for The Division and prove that he didn't make the thread in good faith.
Yet, it was my impression that OP made the thread for a simple reason: scummy tactic > deserves to be exposed, and it was met with such backlash that I almost couldn't believe it at the time.
Another case where some people entirely failed to focus on the actual scummy tactic and even ended up defending it were the Overwatch Loot Crate threads, including the Jimquisition one. The loot crates were pure RNG and prayed on people who just don't want to grind out levels to get a good chance to finally acquire a legendary skin they've been eyeing, especially since the game doesn't even give you the option to browse and buy. But why not give people an option? Why not make it more consumer-friendly? One defense was that you're not supposed to be enticed, you're not supposed to give a shit about the RNG system altogether because the true reward is getting better at the game. All that other stuff doesn't matter. But... It does matter. by default. It is an element of the game and you will have people who are interested in the skins and trinkets. it's simple math, 1+1. So since it is an element of the game and it exists, why not make it more player friendly?
I think the reason these two cases didn't result in complete condemnation of the scummy practices is because they've become so commonplace and we don't view them as a malign, foreign bodies as much as we did before. I think there's actually another Jimquisition where Jim warns us to always keep a vigilant eye because when companies smell the complacency, that's when they strike hard.
Because it just doesn't make sense.
A deceitful ad that misleads people - open and shut case, you expose it and you call it out. Consumer first. Right?
An RNG loot system that just isn't designed towards fair progression - alter it, change it, make it better for the player, because there are players that will be enticed by it, because it is an element of the game. Let's all be for this. Right?
So why the backlash?
Huge Succeeded
Banned
Metroid Prime Hunters and Skyward Sword didn't have shitty controls.
Well, I mean, in Hunter's case, "The game would be terrible played with regular controls" is actually the gods honest truth and so I see the touch control scheme as a superior option.
Skyward Sword's controls are fine.
Stormhammer
Member
i don't have the frame pacing issue, seems perfect to me 10/10 bloodborne get gouda i just came in this bloodborne thread to dismiss your frame pacing concern and praise the goat
she isn't real so it isn't illegal and shes also really 18 you cant censor art stupid american prudes
she isn't real so it isn't illegal and shes also really 18 you cant censor art stupid american prudes
Pretty sure its been posted already but if not then its always gonna be "X is a good game but not in relation to its series".
Ok then it should be classified as a spin-off or become a new IP entirely instead of shoehorning it because we need to sell copies or pander to an audience that isnt the core one. I saw it constantly when N&B came out and its gonna happen in the modern era with Paper Mario and Metroid.
Ok then it should be classified as a spin-off or become a new IP entirely instead of shoehorning it because we need to sell copies or pander to an audience that isnt the core one. I saw it constantly when N&B came out and its gonna happen in the modern era with Paper Mario and Metroid.
ScatheZombie
Member
To be fair, this is frequently used when people are complaining that Game A isn't exactly like Game B. When a product focuses on a under-served market or niche and isn't catering to or designed around widely acceptable gameplay principles.
It's definitely an overused excuse, but it's far more an attack on poor criticism than it is defense of a game. Especially when compared to the other responses you listed.
I was thinking about threads where OP carefully explains point by point why some game is not as good as it could've been.
And first reply is "but i like it". Completely dismissing all criticism. That's pretty common in threads about fallout 4.
Similarly. I'm not happy with some design decisions in a new iteration of a franchise i love.
And someone replies with "if you don't like it don't buy/play it"
DarkConfidant
Member
"It's popular"/"It sold well"
"It's ambitious!"
"Don't buy it" in response to actual design criticism, rather than joining in and also being critical.
"It's ambitious!"
"Don't buy it" in response to actual design criticism, rather than joining in and also being critical.
Oh, this is an interesting pick.
I have definitely read condescending comments like these.
Further expanding on Git Gud:
I know some people just use it as a joke, but I'm referring to the basic point of just telling someone to get better without telling them what they should do to get better and how they can make that process more satisfying.
At the risk of derailing the thread, why haven't you opened it yet? How long have you had it? Did you pay full price?
What compelled you, and others, to buy games that you aren't going to play anytime soon? Can't you just wait until the time you actually intend to play it?
Genuinely curious because games are expensive (to most people). I understand buying a game with a great discount even if you don't have time to play it, but I don't get paying full price in that case.
It's particularly odd to me with Star Fox Zero since the game is allegedly very short and released to mediocre/divisive reviews.
EDIT: Oops, sorry for the double post
I struggle most with reductive statements without context. Even you seem to suffer from it OP (and I probably have at times too).
All of of those examples are correct in certain context and awful in others for example.
That said "you don't have to buy it" in particular gets trotted out alarmingly often to defend indefensible practices.
All of of those examples are correct in certain context and awful in others for example.
That said "you don't have to buy it" in particular gets trotted out alarmingly often to defend indefensible practices.
Demoskinos
Member
Except there totally are games where you can tell the developers balanced around a specific difficulty setting. Hell Bungie outright said that Heroic was the difficulty they balanced the game around.
Well to be fair I wasn't talking about someone liking or disliking these games at all. People are free to like/dislike whatever they want.
I was specifically talking about those who term certain genres/platforms "not real games", which is an incredibly narcissistic & lazy dismissal.
Agree with this. I don't have the energy to argue with people over the controls in these games anymore, but most of these games clearly do have control issues. Kid Icarus was just uncomfortable to play, Skyward Sword was alright for me when it worked as intended and Starfox was just annoying. Maybe if I had less options I'd be more forgiving, but I don't have the patience these days
"At least it tried to do something new and different!"
AKA the Batman V Superman defense.
pretty done
Member
Certainly better designed than Quantum Break :>
I hate the first one. Options aren't always a good thing.
The third one, while I'd never word it that way ("gameplay" isn't really in my vocab), makes me think of a general explanation for why I'd enjoy a mechanically weak yet aesthetically strong game. The occasional Phoenix Wright or Zero Time Dilemma or Rez or Ico or whatever.
This argument by far^
People going "You can do [crazy action]! That's all you need to know" with the implication that all the gameplay context is irrelevant and anyone disagreeing with it is some sort of snobbish anti-fun person.
The most obvious counter to it is to go "In The Force Unleashed, you can crash a Star Destroyer with the Force! WHAT THE FUCK ELSE DO YOU WANT?"
Now remember how that actually felt to play.
The kinds of games I like tend to be slow burns so I'll disagree with this... Trails in the Sky being a great counterpoint - EXTREMELY slow in the first 10, 20 hours (but constantly hints at something greater), by the end of the first game you're chomping at the bit to learn more about the story, and that slow burn/world building pays off in spades as you go through all 70+ hours of the second game. It's delayed gratification in gaming form, but nowadays people want to get right away to the big stuff, without realizing the journey there makes the big events that much more impactful.
SlipperyFishes
Banned
"Stop forcing the "artist" to cave to your agenda" in response to really shitty game design choices (Bullet Girls — all of it)
Also, since the dawn of time, I've found it really obnoxious when people dismiss criticisms because the studio behind it is "an indie dev team", "just two guys", etc.
I would never avoid criticism toward a massive-budget game on the basis of what I would like to see "not being marketable" or whatever, and I won't avoid criticism of a low-budget game's aesthetic on the basis of the developers not having the resources.
I would never avoid criticism toward a massive-budget game on the basis of what I would like to see "not being marketable" or whatever, and I won't avoid criticism of a low-budget game's aesthetic on the basis of the developers not having the resources.
Green Mamba
Member
I find the people who complain the most about the poor artist's vision being compromised don't tend to know the first damn thing about art and its involvement in making commercial products.
Demoskinos
Member
Yes exactly this. I think there is totally an argument for slow burn games.
- I mean I know this is a snobbish way to say "practice", but even just saying "practice" doesn't provide a valid argument. Giving specific pointers to what the person should be doing/trying is different, and an actual valid contribution to the discussion. At least those who say "Go play your twitchy shooters" are fully embracing their drive-by post. People who say "get gud" seem to think they're contributing somehow.
-No, that can't be right. I mean, outside of the obvious hand-holding tutorial section that some games have in the beginning, the game should be fun from the get-go. There's a difference between slow-building and entertaining, they're mutually exclusive. That's coming from someone who loves hunting games.
-This one is insane. I mean criticizing one aspect of a game, does not mean an indictment on the game as a whole.
Conversely, I hate the argument attacking a game with "They're charging (insert value) for a game that's only (insert length of time)!!"
"it gets better" is one of those cases where it really depends on what exactly gets better, and how it improves. if something starts off with a very slow pace (valkyrie profile's solid hour of story sequence at a new game) or without entertaining mobility/combat options that come later (the world ends with you starting with the most boring pins possible), that's fair to warn people about those things but also explain that they change for the better down the road.
i feel like most of the time when "it gets better" is being only used to shut down criticism, it's not paired with 1) any admission that some initial aspect is lacking or flat-out bad 2) any mention of what specifically happens to improve things
i feel like most of the time when "it gets better" is being only used to shut down criticism, it's not paired with 1) any admission that some initial aspect is lacking or flat-out bad 2) any mention of what specifically happens to improve things