-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Poor, Obnoxious, Commonly Used Arguments In Defense of Games
- Thread starter HotHamBoy
- Start date
This is the one that really pisses me off, not just for games but for every kind of media.
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.
Ultimadrago
Member
Even that's too old.
On the "It gets better..." Part I agree and disagree. I many times find this sentiment to be disingenuous, including when speaking of television, books, etc. Still said, there are some truly excellent works that simply take their time to get off the ground. I don't count FFXIII among these, but Trails in the Sky is one where I'd tell the player to take grasp of the world, dialogue and characters better before dropping it.
Being as long of a JRPG it is, that can take too long for some and that's fair enough (noting that they take the scope into consideration with their impressions). Some questionable elements, like the combat system can decide for the player much quicker than the characters. That's also completely fair.
Plague Doctor
Member
This exceeds the scope of this conversation but the rise of optional and cosmetic DLC does take a lot of gameplay potential that in the past was utilized to unlock these items. That is the real shame of cosmetic DLC in that we lose those additional elements to the base game to get these items. I miss the chance to earn them through playing.
The Order 1886 in the nutshell.
John Rabbit
Banned
I don't understand this post. How is someone liking a thing in the face of criticism a poor defense?
"I like thing."
"Thing is bad and you should feel bad."
"But I don't, I like it."
Where is the problem?
It also depends on how bad the game is before it gets better.
Yep, or basically any Soulsborne criticism thread ever. Complain about not being able to pause and watch the mental gymnastics people go through to defend shitty design.
Abstrusity
Member
Because they are. Nobody wants to be told that they are an inferior specimen, fit only to play Candy Crush, and even then, barely.
But then, you look at these games, and it's straightforward. He's attacking you. What would you do in that situation? Take it, or get out of the way?
What if you had a way to stop that damage from occurring?
All of this is a MINDSET people have to be in to play effectively.
"I keep dying but I'm normally good at video games," or "This game is shit, everything kills me so fast and I cant' do anything about it, controls are bad!" or "X is unbalanced because it killed me," to which the answer is get gud. Why?
Because they NEVER HAVE, before. They've never had to try. So they don't even know they have to.
Their lack of understanding and further, their lack of effort in even trying to, is apparent.
"You might need to practice more" doesn't make someone mad enough to retaliate by playing "harder", explaining how they should approach the problem DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF IT BEING A PROBLEM.
Being told "git gud" by anyone who knows what they're talking about is an invitation to free your mind from the shackles you, yourself keep on it, and to explain how you ought to be thinking removes from you the fundamental part of the game: When the mechanics 'click,' and you realize that you've been good all along, but you simply never actually tried the correct way.
That's what those games are about. That's why you don't have "lives," only currency from a pool of infinite currency. You are encouraged to take risks, bash your head against it over and over again until you finally understand.
Until you finally get gud.
Who are we to steal that experience away from someone?
Yeah, those are the worst. The IMDb messageboards are infested with idiots who use similar arguments.
I was thinking of the opposite scenario, where someone brings up their criticisms (usually thread OPs), & another chimes in to retort with little more than that. It adds so little to the discussion.
This is such nonsense.
And there still remains a lot of "git gud" comments in the Souls thread. While I'm not one of them, I can completely understand why a steep learning curve and punishingly difficult gameplay is a negative for gamers.
Movalpolos
Banned
Came in to post about this.
Felt like this the entire time i listened to the Gamexplain discussion about Star Fox Zero as someone who also played all the content SFZ had to offer. You finally master the controls after playing a few hours of the game and youre left with nothing else to do. Waste of time.
nailbombxx
Member
I've never seen anyone use "git gud" in a way that wasn't at least partly intended to be humorous.
Neff
Member
I think all of the defenses raised in the OP are fine in principle, if somewhat abrupt.
I'd never go so far as to call defence of a game obnoxious, so long as the defence has reasons behind it, even if they aren't imparted.
Criticism of games does demand thorough explanation to hold merit though, imo.
I'd never go so far as to call defence of a game obnoxious, so long as the defence has reasons behind it, even if they aren't imparted.
Criticism of games does demand thorough explanation to hold merit though, imo.
Yeah, It's weird how in this age and times, in a videogame forum of all places, people don't fully grasp why on disc DLC happens and where the problem is.
You don't "Own" the contest of the disc, buying a game is buying a license for software, the via of delivery of said software is through the disc, you don't "own" the contents of the disc, you have a license to use the contents of the disc, and said license can legally be restricted to the main game, you want to access the on Disc dlc? you have to purchase the license to that DLC. That's how things have worked in the software business for DECADES, people still don't fully grasp that videogames are the same way.
So why is on disc DLC bullshit? it's not because "it's on the disc, i own it!" (because you don't), it's because it fucking violates the spirit of DLC and Expansion packs, it's because they locked something ready at launch and sold the license separatedly. Ideally DLC should be post game expansions done after the game has launched, that's why it's infurating, but in videogames, in software, you don't own a damn thing, you buy licenses!
TL;DR:
On disc DLC is bullshit, but not for the reasons people think.
Yeah, that's usually how it happens.
-Git Gud
this is an inherent part of what makes games, games. Games generally have some type of barrier of entry passed behind skill. Now, if you don't like something because it's difficult, that's a fine excuse for not liking a game, but it's not a knock against the game unless there are specific reasons why the difficulty is bad IE bad difficulty pacing or bad mechanics. Sometimes, if you're having problems, the only answer you can give is for them to get better at the game. It's like if a basketball player is shit at shooting and misses all his free throws. Your response isnt to say "The free throw is inherently a flawed concept because some people suck at it" you're going to say that you have to get better. I also think people confuse ironic uses of the statement with actual defense. But if you can't play the game well enough to beat it or get what you want out of it, unless you have something brought to the table other then "IM BAD AT THIS BUT I SHOULD BE ABLE TO BEAT IT" the only answer to give is to get better at the game
- It's not for everyone
Another inherent part of any media is that sometimes you arent going to like things that are objectively good. I cant stand to play RTS games, and that may have lead a less eise or more hot take prone Jarate to some innocent thread on StarCraft about how the game is bad and how terrible it is because I personally dont like it. Ive found a lot of people have the issue on this forum where if they dont like something, they think it's inherently bad, which is the wrong way to approach discussion on the merits and flaws of the game (the same happens with people and games they like) sometimes the best thing you can say to someone who likes the mechanics in theory or cant find flaws with them but still dislikes the game is that it just wasnt made for you. Humans have a wide breadth of likes and dislikes.
- It gets better after X hours
So a valid criticism of a game is too say it starts out slow, which has been an issue for a lot of genres, especially genres like the MMO and Hunter genre. But once again, sometimes learning the basics of a game just take time and the developer might feel its best to try and guide you through boring mechanics in the beggining so you can get to advanced gameplay stuff later without being confused and bewildered about how to approach them. Not every game is simple, some games are inherently complex.
- You dont have to buy it
Sometimes, this is also a logical answer to a criticism. Not all DLC or expansions are made equal, and I'd love to say that everyone comes into those topics with an unbiased view of the subject, but that's inherently false. Sometimes if a person cannot handle DLC even existing, the best answer is to just say that it's just optional content.
- Its realistic
Some games are inherently designed to be a "simulation" esque game, things that people will enjoy despite them maybe having flawed game design. This is because the inherent goal of the game is to be realistic, and not to make it so a person not interested in realism can have fun.
- It's about the immersion, not the gameplay
Some games have different goals for what they are trying to accomplish. Gameplay may be the most important part of the game for you, but it isnt for everyone. You can bring up flaws with gameplay, but if the focus on the game is immersion, is gameplay that important then? Not all games cater to you
- Its fun with friends
some games are designed to be played with others in a co-op setting, and once again, not every game needs to adhere to ideas that it can be played solo to have fun.
this thread screams of "What I like is perfect, and what I dont like is flawed, so instead of discussing this like normal human beings, im gonna passive aggressively post about this in other threads and complain"
all these arguments are logical arguments when used right, of course they arent always going to be used well, but thats the nature of internet discussion
this is an inherent part of what makes games, games. Games generally have some type of barrier of entry passed behind skill. Now, if you don't like something because it's difficult, that's a fine excuse for not liking a game, but it's not a knock against the game unless there are specific reasons why the difficulty is bad IE bad difficulty pacing or bad mechanics. Sometimes, if you're having problems, the only answer you can give is for them to get better at the game. It's like if a basketball player is shit at shooting and misses all his free throws. Your response isnt to say "The free throw is inherently a flawed concept because some people suck at it" you're going to say that you have to get better. I also think people confuse ironic uses of the statement with actual defense. But if you can't play the game well enough to beat it or get what you want out of it, unless you have something brought to the table other then "IM BAD AT THIS BUT I SHOULD BE ABLE TO BEAT IT" the only answer to give is to get better at the game
- It's not for everyone
Another inherent part of any media is that sometimes you arent going to like things that are objectively good. I cant stand to play RTS games, and that may have lead a less eise or more hot take prone Jarate to some innocent thread on StarCraft about how the game is bad and how terrible it is because I personally dont like it. Ive found a lot of people have the issue on this forum where if they dont like something, they think it's inherently bad, which is the wrong way to approach discussion on the merits and flaws of the game (the same happens with people and games they like) sometimes the best thing you can say to someone who likes the mechanics in theory or cant find flaws with them but still dislikes the game is that it just wasnt made for you. Humans have a wide breadth of likes and dislikes.
- It gets better after X hours
So a valid criticism of a game is too say it starts out slow, which has been an issue for a lot of genres, especially genres like the MMO and Hunter genre. But once again, sometimes learning the basics of a game just take time and the developer might feel its best to try and guide you through boring mechanics in the beggining so you can get to advanced gameplay stuff later without being confused and bewildered about how to approach them. Not every game is simple, some games are inherently complex.
- You dont have to buy it
Sometimes, this is also a logical answer to a criticism. Not all DLC or expansions are made equal, and I'd love to say that everyone comes into those topics with an unbiased view of the subject, but that's inherently false. Sometimes if a person cannot handle DLC even existing, the best answer is to just say that it's just optional content.
- Its realistic
Some games are inherently designed to be a "simulation" esque game, things that people will enjoy despite them maybe having flawed game design. This is because the inherent goal of the game is to be realistic, and not to make it so a person not interested in realism can have fun.
- It's about the immersion, not the gameplay
Some games have different goals for what they are trying to accomplish. Gameplay may be the most important part of the game for you, but it isnt for everyone. You can bring up flaws with gameplay, but if the focus on the game is immersion, is gameplay that important then? Not all games cater to you
- Its fun with friends
some games are designed to be played with others in a co-op setting, and once again, not every game needs to adhere to ideas that it can be played solo to have fun.
this thread screams of "What I like is perfect, and what I dont like is flawed, so instead of discussing this like normal human beings, im gonna passive aggressively post about this in other threads and complain"
all these arguments are logical arguments when used right, of course they arent always going to be used well, but thats the nature of internet discussion
I'm sorry, but I just plain disagree with this line of thinking. First, your point "All of this is a MINDSET people have to be in to play effectively.........Because they NEVER HAVE, before. They've never had to try. So they don't even know they have to." is so presumptuous, it could be insulting. You can't assume that a person has never had a challenge in a game, different games offer varying levels of challenge. Even games with similar levels of difficulty may vary due to the source of the challenge. For example, you could be great at the Souls series, but suck at shmups.
Secondly, "You might need to practice more" doesn't make someone mad enough to retaliate by playing "harder", explaining how they should approach the problem DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF IT BEING A PROBLEM. Being told "git gud" by anyone who knows what they're talking about is an invitation to free your mind from the shackles you, yourself keep on it, and to explain how you ought to be thinking removes from you the fundamental part of the game: When the mechanics 'click,' and you realize that you've been good all along, but you simply never actually tried the correct way.
So by your logic, anytime someone struggles to comprehend, the answer of "get gud" is best? Come on. There are ways to aid someone without fully giving them the solution. Also, why do you believe you need to "make someone mad enough to retaliate by playing harder"? How did you arrive at this logic?
Sometimes the other difficulties just plain out suck, start a game like Last of us on the hardest difficulty for the first time and I guarantee that it's not going to feel as polished to you as it would with a lower difficulty setting. Plus sometimes games are designed a certain difficulty level in mind so the balance might not be as tight. Like Megaman 9 or 10 with the easy mode made the game a snoozefest.
I agree with this- a well-argued defence of something is hardly obnoxious, even if it can be boiled down to a simple point. Plenty of criticism also starts off on such poorly argued, sweeping stances or based on a few minutes play, so it feels like the OP is assuming all criticism starts off as valid.
'Git Gud' and 'play dozens of hours first' as dismissive responses to criticism are poor, but so are initial criticisms of 'I started up x and played for ten minutes, it's shit, people who've played for 100+ hours are blind to it!' Another shit criticism is 'it's overrated', which is basically saying 'lots of people think it's good, they are all wrong as I think it's bad and my single opinion invalidates the opinions of shedloads of others'.
With regard to both 'git Gud' and 'it's better later on', recognition that some games have combat systems or mechanics that might take hours to learn (particularly strategy games and fighting games, and crafting-heavy stuff) isn't 'obnoxious'. That Monster Hunter has a slow opening that does little to draw in a player looking for a quick hit of instant awesome is a perfectly reasonable criticism that many of its players would agree with. However, it's a rabbit-hole of a game, that requires the player to learn how to forage, fight, craft and do half a dozen other things on top of the spectacle that the casual observer sees and expects to dive into, which is the fights with huge wyverns. It really is a game that does little to welcome the player, but has enough depth to form an all-consuming passion for many players who
make it past that hurdle, although I totally understand why so many players are turned off by it after playing other action games that let you cancel out of attacks and look awesome all the time.
TL
R: well argued criticism and counter-arguments are fine. Shitty kneejerk attempts at either, usually casting multiple other posters as stupid or blind, make shit threads.Abstrusity
Member
Well, yeah.
That's because, like most of memes, when removed from context as a sad display of imitation, it no longer makes sense.
It came from the disaffected, close-knit nobodies who pined for games that took actual effort, and was used in response to people who said the game was shit because THEY were used to being handed progression instead of earning it.
It's not a steep learning curve. It's punishing, AND difficult, but not punishingly difficult.
If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got. And the Souls series is the absolute best example of it. Most people die because they weren't looking before they leap, they weren't paying attention.
They were not playing the game how it's meant to be played, but they also don't know that's what they have to do. It's a problem that is meant to be solved by the player, not by other people FOR the player.
Well, the point of it is to BE offensive. Like I just said (in this post, not the previous), it came from 4chan, where individual threads for individual games tend to be ratherclose-knit communities, where nobody actually knows anyone else. And since most people there are about the same, they used it to get a rise out of people. It's higher art trolling, specifically meant for one purpose. It works when you're the kind of person who needs to prove something to people you don't know on the internet.
When you struggle to comprehend something, and then it FINALLY clicks after you've spent time and effort on it, it's one of the best feelings in the world. There's asking for directions, and there's asking for someone to lead you there.
It's ALWAYS been meant as an insult that nudges people in the right direction.
This. Fuck Git Gud. When I don't Git Gud, it's because I find the game not worthy of my time for the practise.
"Artificial Difficulty" is one that gets thrown around a lot. There are some legitimate cases of that, like just straight nerfing/hiking damage numbers, but more often than not I see it used to criticize something completely subjective. Often this comes from people with the mentality that they should reasonably be able to complete the game without failing once, as opposed to failure being a natural part of the game design.
Seems like the overwhelming theme of this thread is any statement that is a conclusion without supporting evidence is bad. Well, now that I wrote that out I feel like captain obvious.
Seems like the overwhelming theme of this thread is any statement that is a conclusion without supporting evidence is bad. Well, now that I wrote that out I feel like captain obvious.
Right, I agree, which is why I mentioned it in a thread about obnoxious things people use.
Huge Succeeded
Banned
It also might be that your money is more valuable than your time, or inversely the game IS good but extremely short and not what you'd want to spend $60 on. Asura's Wrath is a great example of that, was happy to pay about $20 for the game and DLC combined, and would not have liked spending $70 unless I was making so much that I was just being miserly.
LookAtMeGo
Member
Git gud, its not for you and you dont have to buy it are great defenses.
UncleSporky
Member
Nope, this is also completely wrong.
Games are not budgeted en masse, "here is the money to make the whole game and DLC and maintain it for years afterward." There are different amounts of money relegated to different parts of the production, and the amount of money is allocated relative to the amount expected to be recouped.
Yes, they finished that DLC before the game shipped. But it was a different part of the team, working from a different budget. It wouldn't have gotten made at all if they hadn't planned on selling it as DLC from the beginning. It is essentially pre-funded based on expected sales of that content.
You don't simply deserve to get all content that is finished the exact moment the disc is printed.
Like, what is the point? You got this group of people with money allocated to work on DLC, all ready to go, and you want to be a proponent that they should sit around and hold off because if they work too quickly, too efficiently, they don't deserve to be paid for their efforts? "Sorry, you shouldn't have gotten all that extra content done, now we have to give it away with the rest of the game. Work slower next time so we can justify selling it."
I'd say there's straight-up no such thing as "artificial difficulty". The challenge is there, it being unenjoyable or difficulty levels being poorly differentiated or whatever doesn't somehow make it less real.
"Real difficulty" isn't limited to things that you like. It's very obviously possible to make a god-awful game that is also extremely difficult.
Brawly Likes to Brawl
Member
"Keep whining, you'll buy it anyways"
Sure enjoy the game as much as you want. I enjoy some of those games too. The thing is that these games can actually attract people to the source material if they are fun to play. I have seen a few instances where people never bothered to check out the source material of which the game they played was based on because they didn't like the game. These games can and sometimes are the first exposure to that specific thing. And when it's done poorly people might have the tendency to not even bother checking out the thing that game is based on. I have also seen this happen the other way too. Games being good and people wanting to know more about where all that stuff came from.
RealityCheque
Banned
"git gud" is the #1 reason I've never played a souls game.
From the outside it doesnt seem like a genre I'd enjoy. The hollering of it's hardcore fans just puts me off even more.
From the outside it doesnt seem like a genre I'd enjoy. The hollering of it's hardcore fans just puts me off even more.
digoutyoursoul
Member
"Yeah, no"
Langdon Alger
Banned
But "I don't care about story" is perfectly valid.
SatelliteOfLove
Member
"Git Gud" as like I said isn't for people who ask like this...
..who have done research but feel they're missing something, have done some work, have initiative, but people like this...
...who ignore or repel advice and sit lazily expecting the world to come to them get "git gud" as a wake-up call as they're in waaaaaaaaaaaaaay over their heads and blaming the water. It's also why I'm sad it's fired off as an insult from the getgo by those who forget (or aint gud really to begin with).
Yup. That's a backhanding.
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.
They're describing the wrong games.
That's a nuance one, where the game doesn't get better it changes tempo. Like the above Git Gud talk and 5-finger discouting one's way thru Divinity: Original Sin, it's things that can only be if allowed to.
erotic grandpa
Member
"The story and characters are deep and great, you just need to read the six spin-off novels and watch the mini series and the anime move."
Nah, I'm good.
Nah, I'm good.
CrazyHorse
Junior Member
"Fiction does not offend me" - GTA
digoutyoursoul
Member
"It's a exclusive game to a platform I am a stern fanboy of, so I will get way too sensitive, disingenuous and obnoxious about the negativity it is receiving, defend it anyway I can but if this game was exclusive to a competing platform then I would probably be critical about the game too, I just don't have the balls to admit it"
Lupin the Third
Member
Some games are going to be worth $60 to someone and others only $20 even if it's the inverse for someone else. And since you can't (legitimately) buy most new games for $20 day one, all you can do is wait it out until the game hits your personal price threshold for it. Time is valuable but money is also money. People have an unlimited supply of neither and maybe the people waiting for a drop have enough of a games backlog to tide them over anyway.
That said, people posting that sentiment over and over in a review thread gets really old really, really fast.
The Order 1886 and Quantum break angry joe threads come to mind.
Lupin the Third
Member
I'm in about the same boat here.