Videogames you love, videogames you hate thread

[Garamonde]

Well then if that's true then all the games I like suck and belong in the garbage, right?

[X Gamer 66]

I like Minecraft a lot and I'm not sure if I'd be willing to call it a bad game,

but it is a bad game. again, liking a game does not suddenly mean it's not a bad game.

you know what else is a bad game?

Just Cause 2.

it's an open-world game in which you basically do the same fucking thing over and over for 50 hours. it's buggy and even has some gamebreaking glitches in it. enemy variety is nonexistant and the weapons aren't very different from each other either. it's packed with content and all of the content is essentially the same.


i love the shit out of that game. it's fun as hell. but is it good? no.

Thanking and quoting. Tyvon, I think you are the first person I've known who realizes that "quality" and "fun" are not the same word

[Proton]

Well then if that's true then all the games I like suck and belong in the garbage, right?

Just wham, right out over your head entirely.

[Kriven]

When you base the quality of the game on specs alone, you're just as inaccurate as a person who bases their opinion solely on their enjoyment. A game could run a perfect physics engine and still not be fun. Does that make it a good game, because its programming has no flaws?

You need the combined, yes, opinions, of people with a developmental knowledge and people with an entertainment perspective, and just a touch of history, to determine if a game is good or not.

In direct response to Sol: Knowledge of development does not make any individual's stance on the quality of a game any more viable. It only makes their opinions on the quality of the techniques utilized more viable. These are different things.

[Cobalt Blue]

you know what would had made just cause 2 better?

multiplayer.

and i admit i hate how everything has been focused into solely its multiplayer to compensate for the lack of content but really. being able to tore apart and work in a co-op sort of gameplay for that game would had made it inmensely more enjoyable and would extend its life infinitely.

[Vipershark]

Just wondering, can I get an example of an objectively good game for comparison?

[puggsoy]

Just Cause 2.

it's an open-world game in which you basically do the same fucking thing over and over for 50 hours. it's buggy and even has some gamebreaking glitches in it. enemy variety is nonexistant and the weapons aren't very different from each other either. it's packed with content and all of the content is essentially the same.

That's an exact description of Far Cry 2. Worst game I own. I'm trying to be bored enough to play it so that I can finally get it out of the way.

[Garamonde]

Well then if that's true then all the games I like suck and belong in the garbage, right?

Just wham, right out over your head entirely.

No, I understand, they're saying that even if something is super popular it doesn't make it "good quality". Even if you like it and think it's good because of that it doesn't make it any "higher quality". All the boring overrated games are apparently of such higher quality and are respected by most everyone, whereas every time someone posts about liking a game that is apparently awful and of ~low quality~ they are criticized for it and are seen as having no taste whatsoever even if they like other "good" games (hello Sonic Chronicles and Super Monkey Ball Adventure, how are you). Just making a point that people shouldn't be criticized and made fun of even if what they like apparently isn't as "high standard" as yours.

[/myinvalidopinion]

[Sol]

Well then if that's true then all the games I like suck and belong in the garbage, right?

Not at all! The last thing I was trying to do was say you aren't allowed to like the games you like. I'm just saying that personal experience and technical quality are different things.

It's like with sprites! You might see a set of sprites you really like even though their lineart is kind of off and the color choices could be better, and the sprites suffer all around as a result. But something about those sprites, whatever it is, you find really charming. And that's fine! But there are established techniques, conventions and rules that generally, when followed, can make the sprites better. That's what allows us to critique sprites and decide when they need to be improved and how they can be. Can these rules be broken? Yes, sometimes, and if someone is clever about it, the sprites are that much better for it. The same can be said for games!

When you base the quality of the game on specs alone, you're just as inaccurate as a person who bases their opinion solely on their enjoyment. A game could run a perfect physics engine and still not be fun. Does that make it a good game, because its programming has no flaws?

You need the combined, yes, opinions, of people with a developmental knowledge and people with an entertainment perspective, and just a touch of history, to determine if a game is good or not.

In direct response to Sol: Knowledge of development does not make any individual's stance on the quality of a game any more viable. It only makes their opinions on the quality of the techniques utilized more viable. These are different things.

I realize my post made it seem like opinions should completely removed from judgements of quality, so I'll fix that by saying that I'm not sure that they should be, altogether, nor would it be possible to do so. But knowledge of game design does in fact make your word more viable when it comes to games.

Designers do not just judge the techniques used to make a game, they judge how each aspect fits within the big picture, and how those aspects interact with each other and with the player.

Design is more than just the quality of the pieces used to put the product together, I agree. (I never said otherwise in fact) I also agree that it takes more than just designers to assure a game's quality. (Which is why you have playtesters) But to say that the end product can't be judged objectively by experts in the field any better than the average player is kind of ridiculous.

(sorry if I'm rambling, I am apparently terrible at structuring paragraphs. x:)

---

Also Jetters I completely, completely agree that people shouldn't be made fun of for what they like to play, but making fun of you for liking a game is different than judging the game itself. (although people sometimes do both at once, unfortunately)

[Azure-Tranquility]

Well then if that's true then all the games I like suck and belong in the garbage, right?

Just wham, right out over your head entirely.

No, I understand, they're saying that even if something is super popular it doesn't make it "good quality". Even if you like it and think it's good because of that it doesn't make it any "higher quality". All the boring overrated games are apparently of such higher quality and are respected by most everyone, whereas every time someone posts about liking a game that is apparently awful and of ~low quality~ they are criticized for it and are seen as having no taste whatsoever even if they like other "good" games (hello Sonic Chronicles and Super Monkey Ball Adventure, how are you). Just making a point that people shouldn't be criticized and made fun of even if what they like apparently isn't as "high standard" as yours.

[/myinvalidopinion]

Don't ever mention Sonic Chronicles and Super Monkey Ball Adventure in the same sentence... please.

They're both bad in different ways.

[Alpha Six]

Just wondering, can I get an example of an objectively good game for comparison?

Vanquish
Vanquish is easily the best third person shooter ever made. Vanquish takes an old formula and expands upon it in so many ways. It is a game that is well-designed from head to toe, except for maybe the storyline, which is a little generic and predictable.
The controls are arranged in a way that is "original" but still comfortable prior to warming up. The controls are incredibly responsive and you have tons of abilities that are useful for every situation.
You are rewarded slowly through the game by weapon drops which upgrade the capabilities of your weapon.
Enemies are difficult and incredibly satisfying to kill. There is no enemy in the game that you can kill by hiding in cover and waiting for it to come out, because they will realize that you're turtling and jump straight in after you.
The game keeps you on your toes with a constant flood of action. Something is always going on at almost any given time, whether it be an actual firefight, or the environment around you completely falling apart. And while enemies and bosses aren't extremely varied (there are about three or four bosses are used more than once), all of them are different enough to be their own entity, and each one has its own level of challenge that keeps you interested even when you're fought the same thing four times already.
There is an incredible layer of depth in the game that allows you to play it however you want. You can play it like a cover-based shooter, or you can play it like the high-octane shooter it is. It's also one of the few 3PS games I've played that is almost, if not completely devoid of glitches.
People narc on me a lot for basically fanboy obsessing over this game, but why wouldn't I? Vanquish is basically the perfect example of what all shooters should strive to be.

Mega Man X
Basically the definition of a perfect platformer. Egoraptor covered basically all of it in his Sequelitis review, but the game gives you a goal on a personal level and demands that you meet it. You spend the entire game getting stronger and gaining new abilities. You are not force-fed tutorials, but are instead taught how to play the game by the game itself.
Enemy placement is well-done and gives you just enough time to react to them, thus preventing the player from being cheated out of damage, or even death. You are almost always moving, keeping the game at a nice, consistent pace.

Thunder Force III
Another excellent game (why do I keep mentioning shooters?), this is a sidescrolling shooter for the Sega Genesis. Sidescrolling shooters like TF3 rely mostly on the level design to carry the game over, and luckily, this game delivers, with highly difficult level design where enemies and hazards are placed in very strategic locations that require the player to think properly. The player themselves are given 2 weapons, with 3 other weapons to acquire in the game, and the first 2 weapons you get being able to be upgraded (for a total of 7 weapons in the game). The player also has the ability to shift through four different movement speeds, which adds another layer of depth to the game as well as give the designers more options for level hazards and enemy patterns.

---

Well then if that's true then all the games I like suck and belong in the garbage, right?

lol that's literally not what i or anybody said, please read again.


you can like whatever game you want, that's fine, but if a game is bad, you can't say "I Like It" and get a free pass to the game suddenly not being bad anymore. Sonic Chronicles is objectively an awful game but nobody said you're not allowed to like the game.

[Azure-Tranquility]

Can someone try to explain why Little King's Story is good?

[Garamonde]

Hey my cousin rented LKS once and it looked fun despite being a Pikmin rip-off and the odd jibberish VA.

[Azure-Tranquility]

Hey my cousin rented LKS once and it looked fun despite being a Pikmin rip-off and the odd jibberish VA.

Thing is, other than tossing people on enemies, it barely even reminds me of Pikmin... :/

Jibberish VA I can stand, what with my background on playing games that include them(Banjo-Kazooie, Animal Crossing, etc).

[Yo-Yo Boy]

Can someone try to explain why Little King's Story is good?

Hey my cousin rented LKS once and it looked fun despite being a Pikmin rip-off and the odd jibberish VA.

That's why it's good.