Support NeoGAF

[SuperChoco]

"It's too short"

Yeah, while there are games that seem to finish preemptively, I find that the inverse occurs with increasing frequency where the game is too long or padded out and being marketed as a feature. If a game is well made and fun, but only 5 hours long, it's still a good game. If a game is 60 hours, there's going to be an exponentially higher chance of having some boring or padded spots in there.

"I don't like the fanbase"

Totally a valid criticism for multiplayer games, however I find that some single-player games have this said. There are always going to be weirdos on Deviantart or Tumblr, but you aren't going to find these people unless you are actively looking for them.

 

[pretty done]

"I don't like the fanbase"

Totally a valid criticism for multiplayer games, however I find that some single-player games have this said. There are always going to be weirdos on Deviantart or Tumblr, but you aren't going to find these people unless you are actively looking for them.

This is a good one that I only see on GAF, and usually it's about the Souls series.

No, you don't like Bloodborne because you are bad at games, not because of the annoying fanbase.

 

[PSqueak]

This is a good one that I only see on GAF, and usually it's about the Souls series.

No, you don't like Bloodborne because you are bad at games, not because of the annoying fanbase.

Congratulations, you're part of why people hate souls game for having a shitty fan base.

 

[Kaztinka]

"But did you try the game? then don't judge it if you didn't"

NO! I refuse to play something that I know is bad by just watching a video
sure there are games that might look unappealing to many people at first glance like No More heroes (or any Suda51 game really)
but then there is the order 1886.....

 

[SuperChoco]

Congratulations, you're part of why people hate souls game for having a shitty fan base.

For the record, the games I had in mind when I was making that point were Sonic, Fire Emblem, and Undertale. All have "awesome" fanarts and shipping which can easily be ignored.

 

[PSqueak]

For the record, the games I had in mind when I was making that point were Sonic, Fire Emblem, and Undertale. All have "awesome" fanarts and shipping which can easily be ignored.

Oh, don't worry, i totally got your post, i just found funny that someone quoted and hi-jacked it by displaying the sort of attitude why people find the souls fandom obnoxious.

Also they were unironically displaying themselves a "poor, obnoxious, commonly used argument" in defense of said series, which is kinda funny in the context of the thread.

 

[Card Boy]

"It gets better after [multiple hours]"

This pissed me off the most about FF13, it got good for like 1 chapter when everything was non-linear for a brief moment then went to shit again for the rest of the game.

 

[Aaron D.]

"Games aren't supposed to be fun"

Could be considered semantics, but there's lots of games that aren't fun. Titles that are critical successes, but are focused on dynamics and subjects that are anything but fun. Perhaps you could use the word "satisfying" or "engaging" instead of fun.

Just a few off the top of my head:

Europa Universalis IV
That Dragon Cancer
Gone Home
Cart Life
Dwarf Fortress
Her Story
Kerbal Space Program
TIS-100

 

[ishibear]

"I don't like the fanbase"

Totally a valid criticism for multiplayer games, however I find that some single-player games have this said. There are always going to be weirdos on Deviantart or Tumblr, but you aren't going to find these people unless you are actively looking for them.

Good one. I didn't even think of this one but it's very common.

Multiplayer, I agree is pretty reasonable because there are definitely some jerks out there. Generally speaking, unless you're into a game that attracts certain types of gamers or you actively look for the dark side, most of the time, fandom can be pretty tame. Also helps that I predominantly stick to myself or a handful of equally reasonable people with my fandom related stuff.

If people are having a hard time finding people who share their perception of gaming content, use Tumblr or Twitter, etc and advertise yourself. Post what you like about a game, see who connects with you, exchange opinions about said game and sort out the people that interest you. The ones that don't, leave them alone. Simple.

 

[Woo-Fu]

Nothing about that statement addresses or counters claims that a game is difficult or obtuse.

Why would I want to counter a claim about a game being difficult? I prefer my games that way. Challenge to fun is almost linear till you hit the wall. Those of us who "git gud" don't hit the wall, we scale it.

While it is certainly OK to not like a game because it is too hard for you you might want to think twice about publicly panning it for that reason. If it is too hard for the majority, then yeah, there is a problem. I can't think of a modern game that fits that bill.

Poly Bridge is melting my brain 2-3 times a day and I love it. Thing is I don't keep banging my head against the wall in frustration. I go play something else for awhile and then come back to the problem scenario when I'm fresh and have perhaps had time to think of new approaches to the problems presented.

Sometimes I get the feeling that there is at least one generation of gamer who are over-reliant upon the ability to look up the solution to any puzzle/problem in any game on the Internet. Whenever they confronted with a game they can't "beat" that way they're unhappy. And they also tend to avoid anything with significant skill cap, like multiplayer in some games. Then when they complain about those games/modes on forums naturally the people who put in the time/effort to succeed at those games/modes they think they're lightweights.

tldr; There are times when "get good", or perhaps "get better" are entirely valid replies.

 

[sn00zer]

GTAV is fine for kids because I played GTA 3 as a kid.

 

[PSqueak]

GTAV is fine for kids because I played GTA 3 as a kid.

This one is funny, because i look back at things i played, saw or did on the net when i was a kid and think to myself "holy shit, i shouldn't have gotten away with that shit".

 

[Rushersauce]

Yup, just call this thread "Bethesda defense force, and why they make no sense"

 

[Platy]

"All women are sexualized because EVERYONE is sexualized and beautifull in videogames"

usualy in a discussion of a game that features a green monster, skulls, literal aliens and other totaly not beautiful people

 

[RPGam3r]

This is a good one that I only see on GAF, and usually it's about the Souls series.

No, you don't like Bloodborne because you are bad at games, not because of the annoying fanbase.

LMAO the irony of this post in this thread.

 

[Terrorblot]

The one that really bothers me is when a mechanic makes something too easy or unenjoyable and the response is "don't use that feature then" in example Fast Travel in an Elder Scrolls game. The game is designed around using it, I'm going to use it, but that doesn't mean I can't be critical of it. A second example is I recall the Fight Night series having really cool analog stick controls that were really fun to play with, but then they patched in face button controls, which could be used in online play, and since it's easier to land a jab by pushing B than by doing a quarter circle, you're stuck using them. Also ports and renditions of fighters where they map specials to hotkeys like SvC 2 EO or Street Fighter 4 on 3DS.

 

[ishibear]

Could be considered semantics, but there's lots of games that aren't fun. Titles that are critical successes, but are focused on dynamics and subjects that are anything but fun. Perhaps you could use the word "satisfying" or "engaging" instead of fun.

Just a few off the top of my head:

Europa Universalis IV
That Dragon Cancer
Gone Home
Cart Life
Dwarf Fortress
Her Story
Kerbal Space Program
TIS-100

These posters who believe a game shouldn't be fun more or less seemed to entail that a game shouldn't be enjoyable, it should be difficult. Problem is, even a game that punishes you most of the time (ala people's horror stories from Souls games) is still enjoyable because the game is challenging. This argument was framed to argue about a game that in fact rewards you for your hard work or tactical thinking but punishes you when you goof up. The point they made went against that game's design and like every game in existence. If a game entertains, engages, stimulates, challenges, etc the player, it's doing it's job. If the game does nothing but punish you, that's not enjoyable and further, doesn't seem possible?

I think a lot of the time, fun and engaging/stimulating/etc can be interchangeable in games. But maybe that's just me?

 

[Jangowuzhere]

Man, the amount of people basically telling me "You're playing it wrong" in the that Quantum Break thread was super annoying.

Like, really, do these people think they're smart when they say this? Quantum Break has no where near the complexity of the best of shooters. Yet, despite that, people think I'm a complete idiot that doesn't know how to use the powers properly. Yeah, I don't know how to properly use one of the core game mechanics of this video game, Fuck off.

At least say "You're playing it wrong" when we're talking about a game that wasn't made for casual simpletons. This isn't Bloodborne, StarCraft, ARMA, or CSGO. This was Quantum Break for christ sake.

 

[Neoleo2143]

"It's supposed to be Realistic". I can count on my one hand how many games are actually realistic or trying realism honestly.

 

[Lindsay]

wtf at people claiming "git gud" is advice. Advice would be working through the players issue an describing the way to get past it. Heck, even throwing a link to some video showing the problem point in question and how someone got past it is way better. "git gud" on its own is just meaningless nonsense

 

[Morrigan Stark]

I don't think anyone would object to someone saying, "you just need a bit more practice"?

Well... "git gud" is just a rude/humourous way of saying that. *shrugs* It's usually in retort not to someone who is genuinely struggling and asking for advice, but to someone who claims the game sucks and complains constantly while they clearly don't understand why they're playing wrong.

"The feature is optional, therefore it is immune to all criticism."

I'm actually going to rag on an argument I saw used in defense of Dragon Age: Inquisition, a game I actually love and am still playing:

"You don't have to play the side-quests/it's optional/just for completionists."

Yeah. This annoys me to no end.

A shitty side-quest is still shitty content and deserves to be criticized. It's forgivable overall if it's just one of many quality ones (so you can actually say "just skip that one"), but when your game is bloated to the brim with shitty side-quests, it becomes even worse.

lol

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.

That's a good one. I hadn't thought of it when reading the thread, but I definitely agree that it's a stupid and annoying argument.

"Stop forcing the "artist" to cave to your agenda" in response to really shitty game design choices

Aaaand here we have my favourite. Yeah this one is so absurd, and completely divorced from the reality of game-making and art creation too.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

"But did you try the game? then don't judge it if you didn't"

NO! I refuse to play something that I know is bad by just watching a video
sure there are games that might look unappealing to many people at first glance like No More heroes (or any Suda51 game really)
but then there is the order 1886.....

I encourage everyone who gets this limp retort to fire back "I see what you're doing and no I ain't contributing a sale to this shitty game of yours"

 

[Rambler]

"I'm going to take all of your criticisms and ignore them and pretend that you only have one issue with the game that I can easily dismiss."

You saw this a lot with the DMC reboot (you only hate it because Dante doesn't have white hair!) and you see it a lot with Federation Force now (you only hate it because of the cartoon art style!).

 

[HotHamBoy]

"I'm going to take all of your criticisms and ignore them and pretend that you only have one issue with the game that I can easily dismiss."

You saw this a lot with the DMC reboot (you only hate it because Dante doesn't have white hair!) and you see it a lot with Federation Force now (you only hate it because of the cartoon art style!).

I see a lot of straw man arguments where people argue the general opinion of the critics rather than the actual opinion of the poster.

 

[Aaron D.]

This argument was framed to argue about a game that in fact rewards you for your hard work or tactical thinking but punishes you when you goof up. The point they made went against that game's design and like every game in existence. If a game entertains, engages, stimulates, challenges, etc the player, it's doing it's job. If the game does nothing but punish you, that's not enjoyable and further, doesn't seem possible?

I think a lot of the time, fun and engaging/stimulating/etc can be interchangeable in games. But maybe that's just me?

Yeah, I agree with all this.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Narroo]

I encourage everyone who gets this limp retort to fire back "I see what you're doing and no I ain't contributing a sale to this shitty game of yours"

Sadly, I did contribute to ZTD.

Here's a more situational one:

XXX doesn't matter to the game. People who play the game don't care about XXX

For example, it appears that after 5 games - 3 mainline games and 2 DLC editions - Blazblue is actually dropping it's dub. And who knows what else since in the past they've dropped things they didn't feel like translating.
Since it's a fighting game, apparently no one really needs a dub (or any kind of translation) to play it. Overseas players should be happy with less because it's an arcade fighting game and none of that 'fluff' matters. Why developers keep giving characters lines or story modes, or really any sort of text or voices that can be understood is a mystery. I wonder if these are the same people that get in a huff-and-puff about censorship in video games?

On a related note: Anti-dubbers: "English Dubs suck! I only want to play in Japanese with Subtitles!" Good for you.

 

[Alienfan]

"it's just cosmetic DLC..." completing ignores how important progression mechanics/unlocks can be, as well the impact visuals have and how their use can subtly alter how much you enjoy a game. Cosmetic DLC is a better alternative than season passes for sure, but that doesn't mean it's a good form of DLC, and this shoulder shrug of "who cares?" really annoys me.

 

[eizarus]

I wanna throw in one thing that really pisses me off but it's not in defence of games. It's used by gamers in competitive games when they can't handle that you beat them with a better understanding of the game's mechanics and skill.

I'm referring to when people say "Tryhard". Like wtf? Do you expect to not try to win? To be fair, I've only heard it in League, but it has to be one of the most senseless insults.

 

[R_thanatos]

"It's an experience" or "It's art" are the absolute worst for me. I always hear it when I mention that I found Journey to be an absolute bore.

It's fine to dislike the experience , but denying that journey isn't an experience is silly , IMO

 

[Gbraga]

It's fine to dislike the experience , but denying that journey isn't an experience is silly , IMO

I don't think he's denying that Journey is an experience, it's more that it doesn't say absolutely anything relevant at all. Anything is an experience. Watching paint dry is an experience. It says nothing about anything, experiences can be awful.

Same for art, you can find art boring, too. It's not an objective metric of quality.

I love Journey, btw. Can't wait to play it for the fourth time on PS4, it should look incredible at 1080p and 60fps (is it 60fps?)

 

[More_Badass]

I don't think he's denying that Journey is an experience, it's more that it doesn't say absolutely anything relevant at all. Anything is an experience. Watching paint dry is an experience. It says nothing about anything, experiences can be awful.

Same for art, you can find art boring, too. It's not an objective metric of quality.

I love Journey, btw. Can't wait to play it for the fourth time on PS4, it should look incredible at 1080p and 60fps (is it 60fps?)

Extra Credits did a good analysis of Journey, positing that it's essentially a visual chronicle of the "hero's journey"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWKKRbw-e4U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVqT8s7bOTQ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth

 

[kamineko]

originally posted by gaffer Llyrwenne

 

[Rambler]

I'm with the ninja turtles on this one.

 

[aggienader]

I'm failing to understand the whole point of this thread. People have their reasons for liking games, just as people have their reasons for disliking them.

Why does it matter what anyone says, especially in a case of arguing in their defense of liking/disliking a game? This is something that will never change.

 

[LukasTaves]

When people defend a bad game on the premise of good story and plot.

Like X game does everything better than Y, but Y's story is so terrible I prefer X.

It bothers because most of the time said games have a pretty bad story as well.

Not that can't be good games with simpler game mechanics that rely on story, but I believe that if you put a mechanic in one game it should be good compared to what's on the market, specially if it's used a lot, so if the developer can't deliver on that don't use the mechanic.

 

[Sir Ilpalazzo]

It's fine to dislike the experience , but denying that journey isn't an experience is silly , IMO

All games are experiences. Journey is not unique in that regard, and it is no less an experience than the new Doom.

It's one thing to say, like, "I liked this game's aesthetics, its story was cool, and I don't really care that it was a mechanically simple game". But it's annoying when people start throwing the "art" card around to try to elevate games like that, or say that they're somehow incomparable to mechanically complex games.

 

[kamineko]

All games are experiences. Journey is not unique in that regard, and it is no less an experience than the new Doom.

It's one thing to say, like, "I liked this game's aesthetics, its story was cool, and I don't really care that it was a mechanically simple game". But it's annoying when people start throwing the "art" card around to try to elevate games like that, or say that they're somehow incomparable to mechanically complex games.

While I'm OK discussing games as art, I agree that the "art card" is often used, without any supporting arguments, to shut down discussion

 

[Lt.Chips]

Similar to git gud but equally as annoying:

"Oh, but you haven't played the real game if you haven't beaten the hardest difficulty"

Most "hardcore" fans of various character action games are guilty of this one.

 

[gigantor21]

originally posted by gaffer Llyrwenne

Saving this for future reference.

"I'm going to take all of your criticisms and ignore them and pretend that you only have one issue with the game that I can easily dismiss."

You saw this a lot with the DMC reboot (you only hate it because Dante doesn't have white hair!) and you see it a lot with Federation Force now (you only hate it because of the cartoon art style!).

Ugh, this is the absolute worst. It's basically an admission that you can't argue against the broader point so you have to deflect to a specifc detail to sidestep the issue entirely. -_-

 

[More_Badass]

All games are experiences. Journey is not unique in that regard, and it is no less an experience than the new Doom.

It's one thing to say, like, "I liked this game's aesthetics, its story was cool, and I don't really care that it was a mechanically simple game". But it's annoying when people start throwing the "art" card around to try to elevate games like that, or say that they're somehow incomparable to mechanically complex games.

Is the "art card" not valid? Just like movies or tv or books can be elevated among other works in the genres and mediums due to cinematography or prose imagery or so on, is it not possible for some games to be elevated above others? I mean, when people talk about Journey as art, they often mention how it influenced them emotionally, and how the visuals, music, movement, pacing, and such coalesced in an affecting way. It's not usually just a baseless statement. Just because a game did nothing for you doesn't mean the way it affected others aren't equally valid.

And I'm saying that as someone who played Journey last week for the first time and didn't come away as particularly impressed.

 

[Platy]

"Stop forcing the "artist" to cave to your agenda" in response to really shitty game design choices (Bullet Girls — all of it)

The more hilarious the bigger the game is

Edit

Is the "art card" not valid? Just like movies or tv or books can be elevated among other works in the genres and mediums due to cinematography or prose imagery or so not, is it not possible for some games to be elevated above others? I mean, when people talk about Journey as art, they often mention how it influenced them emotionally, and how the visuals, music, movement, pacing, and such coalesced in an affecting way. It's not usually just a baseless statement. Just because a game did nothing for you doesn't mean the way it affected others aren't equally valid.

And I'm saying that as someone who played Journey last week for the first time and didn't come away as particularly impressed.

I think the poster means calling only good art as "art"

 

[Huge Succeeded]

Similar to git gud but equally as annoying:

"Oh, but you haven't played the real game if you haven't beaten the hardest difficulty"

Most "hardcore" fans of various character action games are guilty of this one.

Except this is kinda valid. I'm not sure I'd use the exact language you quoted, but yeah, sometimes games are balanced around a higher difficulty or a higher difficulty emphasizes the strengths of a game's design.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

"Games aren't supposed to be fun"

They're not.

Putting games in a box where they're supposed to be fun is inherently limiting. Game should be "engaging," or "interesting." Maybe even "entertaining."

They don't need to be fun.

 

[dancingphlower]

I'm not a fan of the "You're playing it wrong!" argument.

 

[More_Badass]

Man, the amount of people basically telling me "You're playing it wrong" in the that Quantum Break thread was super annoying.

Like, really, do these people think they're smart when they say this? Quantum Break has no where near the complexity of the best of shooters. Yet, despite that, people think I'm a complete idiot that doesn't know how to use the powers properly. Yeah, I don't know how to properly use one of the core game mechanics of this video game, Fuck off.

At least say "You're playing it wrong" when we're talking about a game that wasn't made for casual simpletons. This isn't Bloodborne, StarCraft, ARMA, or CSGO. This was Quantum Break for christ sake.

Eh...I'd place it up there with Vanquish as a shooter that promotes aggressive action and use of your abilities. Made a thread about it. Every power basically incentivized you to stay out of cover, keep moving, and be aggressive

2016 has been a good year for fans of bullet time. I finally got around to playing Quantum Break today, and was surprised to find a game that, kind of like a certain other shooter with cover that's not really about cover, promotes aggressive combat and constant movement.

For one, cover isn't very effective. You don't really stick to cover, and enemies love to flank you and throw grenades to get you to move. But besides that, the time powers themselves all encourage you to be moving and getting up close and personal with enemies. Your dash not only lets you quickly evade gunfire and stun enemies when you hit them, but also rewards smart flanking with a few moments of bullet time to unleash some shots. Your time slow bubble lets you cordon off a direction or block bullets from a certain area forcing enemies to move, and rewards good positioning and timing with stopping entire group of enemies. Your shield lets you create protection on the move, and unleash a shockwave at melee range, again encouraging you to get close and stun enemies especially if you have a shotgun.

Those and your other moves combine to form a moveset that encourages to keep moving, flanking enemies, getting to melee range than jumping back out, evading fire.

 

[Nerokis]

This is a general pet peeve of mine, but bingo cards are up there in terms of contributing to poor discussions over video games. It's a cheap framework for maneuvering through disagreement, and reinforces our biases while contributing nothing resembling an actual argument. Seriously, it's like having TalkOrigins or something in the background while debating evolution, but the lowest common denominator version of that.

It's something that should be good for a laugh and nothing more, and I don't mind them at all when used that way. But because it's such an effective, self-serving framework generator (just add a row after some new lanes of disagreement come up!), people tend to use them to reinforce their side of an argument.

 

[prag16]

It's probably been said, but, "You're doing it wrong" can be an annoying one. Related to "get gud" to an extent, but different in that you're not necessarily telling the player they suck, but that they're playing the game the wrong way (while ignoring or glossing over any legitimate complaints/flaws the game has).

Though I will say this one can be valid at times too; for example Quantum Break. A lot of people complained that the combat in that game is boring and generic. The game has some issues, but if you're :calling the combat "boring and generic" you're almost certainly doing it wrong (e.g. trying to approach combat scenarios as you would in Gears or something).

EDIT: Hah, didn't realize the lead doing-it-wrong example from the Quantum Break thread that made me think of this exception was already in this thread too posting. Agree to disagree I guess, but you sure SOUND like you're doing it wrong based on your commentary in that topic.

 

[cartographer]

When something ridiculous is defended by saying "well it makes sense in the lore." I'm looking at you, Quiet. It's a product featuring fictional characters. Of course they created a transparent attempt to have it make sense. But the existence of this completely made-up lore reason does not justify the original ridiculous thing. It's just fiction.

originally posted by gaffer Llyrwenne

This is the best one.

 

[meppi]

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

Late reply for this, sorry.

I'm just flooded with games at this point.
Don't really know what to play first and thus it has been put on the backlog for now.
I just picked up quite a few games in anticipation of my summer vacation and due to the reception it has gotten, I was drawn more toward the other games that I picked up first.

 

[R_thanatos]

I don't think he's denying that Journey is an experience, it's more that it doesn't say absolutely anything relevant at all. Anything is an experience. Watching paint dry is an experience. It says nothing about anything, experiences can be awful.

Same for art, you can find art boring, too. It's not an objective metric of quality.

I love Journey, btw. Can't wait to play it for the fourth time on PS4, it should look incredible at 1080p and 60fps (is it 60fps?)

JOurney is a special game because the limited amount of interraction and the way it connect other players togethers make for a different experience each time.
I played journey on PS3 and pS4 quite a number of times and each time it was different.
I understand that a player can play journey and find it dull , someone else might find the opposite .. but regardless of the experience , by the mecanics in place ( there are plenty of them ) , it's an experience.

I have to argue : what makes a game revelant or not ? Journey story is told throught flashback paintings actually explaining the narrative , there are ennemies to avoid , co-operation play is possible and encouraged , secrets to explore to get more out of it.
How is journey not revelant ? the game has a different approach , yes , but it checks all the boxes of current gameplay design. What makes journey not revelant ? I fail to understand the argument that a game like journey can be played multiples times and provide a different experience, but manages to saiid irrevelant ?
I mean i said , it's fine to dislike the game .. but you can't deny that it provides something different after multiples playthroughts