07-26-2011, 07:57 PM
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
07-26-2011, 10:14 PM
![[Image: ruuomq.gif]](http://i52.tinypic.com/ruuomq.gif)
07-27-2011, 01:01 AM
(07-26-2011, 06:03 PM)GrooveMan.exe Wrote: [ -> ]This thread is pretty silly. The list of games that are Objectively Bad may be fairly numerous, but even then, that's not much cause for actual hate.
Stop getting angry at video games. instead, be angry at yourself, since you've spent money on something you apparently don't enjoy.
Is there an existing list of objectively bad games?
Serious question.
I imagine it'd be a hilarious read.
07-27-2011, 03:22 AM
That would be an amusing project.
Though for a rough guide of objectively bad games in the last 10 years or so Metacritic would be an ok place to start.
Though for a rough guide of objectively bad games in the last 10 years or so Metacritic would be an ok place to start.
07-27-2011, 04:40 PM
except that metacritic is really just popular opinion
games like bioshock and god of war still have really high scores so thats moot
games like bioshock and god of war still have really high scores so thats moot
07-27-2011, 06:31 PM
because bioshock is the best game ever
07-27-2011, 07:48 PM
(07-27-2011, 04:40 PM)Gnostic WetFart Wrote: [ -> ]except that metacritic is really just popular opinion
You were making sense....
(07-27-2011, 04:40 PM)Gnostic WetFart Wrote: [ -> ]games like bioshock and god of war still have really high scores so thats moot
lol what? Bioshock is good, what does a Metacritic score have anything to do about that? It is/not good because Metacritic says so? You and I both know, that's like justifying hatred of Sonic or Final Fantasy 7 because of the fans. That's a terrible argument for something as subjective as specific as Videogames. If two people like a thing but you don't think it's as good as they think it is then you just don't think it's as good as they think it. That's it.
07-27-2011, 08:04 PM
Quote:Bioshock is good, what does a Metacritic score have anything to do about that?nothing.
and thats my point.
the metacritic score has nothing to do with the actual quality of a title. thus, one could easily infer from my statement about god of war and bioshock having high scores that that was a purported example of the scores being misleading. (because neither bioshock nor god of war are, in fact, "good". god of war is an entirely passive action game, and bioshock is a failed attempt to bring video games "to the next level" while doing everything it possible can to remind you that it is a video game)
07-27-2011, 09:48 PM
I don't think it's a failed attempt, since it was rated as the first game to really make video games an art, basically.
07-28-2011, 03:02 AM
...which is again referring to "popular" opinion. popular opinion has no bearing on whether or not something is correct or justifiable or not. the mass media surrounding gaming culture is a joke.
the very fact that the game is taken as seriously as it is is depressing.
the very fact that the game is taken as seriously as it is is depressing.
07-28-2011, 07:32 AM
so you're like
a hipster video gamer
a hipster video gamer
07-28-2011, 08:10 AM
Well, that's just your opinion.
07-28-2011, 10:54 AM
yes/no.
whether or not a game is popular doesnt inform whether or not i think a game is good. i approach each game on an individual basis: devil may cry and shadow of the colossus are critically acclaimed and i adore them.
really, thats how everyone should approach gaming.
ico and sotc did a lot more to push games towards that "art" label than bioshock ever did: you cant transcend games to a new level by creating an amusing and awkward dichotomy between the game as seen and told (what the game tells you, the plot, et cetera) versus the game as played (how its mechanics actually function). bioshocks primarily failing is that its illusion is easily shattered, it is nothing but a pretty, hollow shell.
during the games open, you can sit around and float for hours after the plane crashes. you can swim through fire with no repercussions. there is only one body floating on the wreckage. there are blatant invisible walls.
instead of trying to provide anything resembling a contextual reason for any of this, it simply exists as convention; because it is a video game. the entire game is littered with this nonsense. puzzles are convenient and quickly solvable. the level design is a nonsensical mess of samey looking hallways. power ups, like ENRAGE (ENRAGES target, causing it to attack someone other than you) are bought in vending machines. it makes me wonder at what point something like that would have any practical application as a salable good available to the mass market.
there is another part early on in the game where a glass tube cracks. the door shuts behind you, and water starts pouring in. but thats nothing but a visual effect: the water level, once it reaches its base point, never actually rises. i left the game sitting at that point for about an hour while my friend showed me funny videos online; water spewing in like the entire ocean was trying to make its way in, tense music, and yet that tension was hollow because none of it actually mattered. it was a momentary illusion, tricking only the unreceptive or the gullible.
bioshock is not art as created by an artist, bioshock is a gamers attempt at art.
whether or not a game is popular doesnt inform whether or not i think a game is good. i approach each game on an individual basis: devil may cry and shadow of the colossus are critically acclaimed and i adore them.
really, thats how everyone should approach gaming.
ico and sotc did a lot more to push games towards that "art" label than bioshock ever did: you cant transcend games to a new level by creating an amusing and awkward dichotomy between the game as seen and told (what the game tells you, the plot, et cetera) versus the game as played (how its mechanics actually function). bioshocks primarily failing is that its illusion is easily shattered, it is nothing but a pretty, hollow shell.
during the games open, you can sit around and float for hours after the plane crashes. you can swim through fire with no repercussions. there is only one body floating on the wreckage. there are blatant invisible walls.
instead of trying to provide anything resembling a contextual reason for any of this, it simply exists as convention; because it is a video game. the entire game is littered with this nonsense. puzzles are convenient and quickly solvable. the level design is a nonsensical mess of samey looking hallways. power ups, like ENRAGE (ENRAGES target, causing it to attack someone other than you) are bought in vending machines. it makes me wonder at what point something like that would have any practical application as a salable good available to the mass market.
there is another part early on in the game where a glass tube cracks. the door shuts behind you, and water starts pouring in. but thats nothing but a visual effect: the water level, once it reaches its base point, never actually rises. i left the game sitting at that point for about an hour while my friend showed me funny videos online; water spewing in like the entire ocean was trying to make its way in, tense music, and yet that tension was hollow because none of it actually mattered. it was a momentary illusion, tricking only the unreceptive or the gullible.
bioshock is not art as created by an artist, bioshock is a gamers attempt at art.
07-28-2011, 11:39 AM
idg the discussion about whether you can hate a popular game i mean its like duh
i hate fable 2 too i forgot about that
i hate all the characters voices like holy shit
i hate fable 2 too i forgot about that
i hate all the characters voices like holy shit
07-28-2011, 01:03 PM
i really cant give two shits about final fantasy games besides 9 and 9.
and people somehow hates/ignores 9 for some reason.
and people somehow hates/ignores 9 for some reason.