Wesley-Sigma
Member
I'm generally not fond of western games either. I share the sentiment.
Though I can enjoy the PS4 variants of Uncharted. In 60fps, they're fun enough. For myself, anyway. I do abhor Bethesda, though.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Raise the flame shield: Your "controversial" gaming opinion.
- Thread starter Laughing Banana
- Start date
Though I can enjoy the PS4 variants of Uncharted. In 60fps, they're fun enough. For myself, anyway. I do abhor Bethesda, though.
Loonz
Member
I've got to say that you're not alone on this. I hold MP as one of the most groundbreaking experiences I've ever had playing videogames. I do not agree with people putting games from the same generation like let's say RE4 above this one, and I love RE4.
The ultrasmooth and hyperprecise gameplay. The amazing graphics and special effects. The solidness of the multilevelled environments. That superb jump action. The unparalelled fluidity of the combat, loved those duels with the space pirates. The incredible sci-fi atmosphere, music score and tremendous immersion. The bosses, specially Ridley at the end. The ingenuity of the puzzles, and how beautifully they were intertwined with the rest of the action. This game, this freaking game, defines that era the best to me, still to this day. Made most PS2 games look old gen, unrefined, and puny. I hold it dear. Best Nintendo game of that generation, and best game overall, unmatched IMHO.
Those supertight controls are still unrivalled. Many times while playing Destiny I wished for the MP jump, game feels loose and off in comparison, even though its gameplay is actually quite amazing. Still to this day.
Long live Metroid Prime. I hope Nintendo decides to make a new entry for the Switch, I will be all over it if it's based on the MP style. I raise my cup to you, my friend, as I for one enjoyed this masterpiece every bit as you.
EDIT: To finish, as following the thread's topic, I'd say that I consider the PS4 as a vastly inferior console compared to my Sony's favourite, the PS3; catalog-wise specially IMHO, but also in regards to the ultra-low building quality of the console itself and the pads. Talking about the first model here. Just my 2 cents.
This is the fucking truth, and yes, another one needs to be made.Bloody Roar was awesome. Wish we can get a new one
klabautermann
Member
Glad I'm not alone on that. I don't think anything is inherently wrong or bad about them, but I just... I don't know, they don't feel like I want them to, but when you grew up in that 90's era where Japanese games were king, I could never shake the different vibes I got from Western games. I'm probably withholding some really great games from life over a stupid bias, but ah well. I really only played Uncharted 1 and some of 2. Uncharted has really likable characters and stuff, but just some of the gameplay and the stealth mechanics in 2 made me put it down for good.
Its nice to see that other gaffers know this games. I had such a blast playing it when I was younger.
Me and my brother still fire up our old ps3 (Although it makes strange noises) to play BR3. But thats once a yearly thing, coz we live in diffrent countries. A new BR game with online mode would be the best thing ever for me (gaming wise lol)
I've played better and worse games I didn't like.
As to the differentiated bit, I was talking about your own sense. I can like things in different ways and see some of those as more responsive to quality than others.
Edit: in general, the point is actually having a degree of sophistication and mutual intelligibility to talking about the quality of a game and appreciating it. Perhaps that's all just post hoc and meaningless sophistication, but that is what being critical is.
When it is just "Game I like=good game" there is no room for conversation and the only reason conversation is engaged in along such lines is to circlejerk, berate others, or provide sophistry to shore up said impression without actually taking the conversation to have critical bearing.
I dare believe in critical thought, and I mean that seriously. It is a very dubious thing wrt its existence.
Lys Skygge
Member
I almost agree with this. But for me it's ever so slightly MM > WW.
TriAceJP
Member
Didn't say anything about perfection. There is enough in that game that brings it down. The good outweighs the bad, but there is plenty of bad.
It's like 8.5 is a bad game or something?
-Mutsukki-
Member
Nobody said anything about that. They're talking about the latter part of your post, where you're confused how a game can be 10/10 when the same reviewer points out it's flaws and they're just saying that 10/10 is not a perfect, flawless game. Reviews are not objective pieces
Well, you can say it's an FPS and not be wrong, but you can downplay those adventure components of the game and be wrong or at least be understating things. It's like trying to say 2D Metroid is just a Contra clone, when the open map and upgrades to open more of the game to you are huge parts of what makes it unique. Far more than just "elements."
Mass Effect: Andromeda problems are overblown. Reviewers get affected by positive or negative hype of games and gives scores accordingly.
The game is so much better than FF15 and Fallout4 in a lot of aspects but those games got a pass while ME:A didn't, which is fine as issues shouldn't get pass anyway.
The game is so much better than FF15 and Fallout4 in a lot of aspects but those games got a pass while ME:A didn't, which is fine as issues shouldn't get pass anyway.
TriAceJP
Member
They aren't? People need to learn how to review.
I'll be honest, I'm having a little trouble parsing what you're trying to say here, but you can still engage in critical thought while still having whether or not you like a game as your ultimate deciding factor regarding whether it's good or not. Mostly because people can think critically about why they do or don't like something. Why you like something usually has deeper meaning than just "I like it,"; it'll usually come down to how the game is made, feels, designed, looks, sounds, tells its story, etc. These are all things you can critically analyze while discussing whether or not a game is good because you do or don't like it.
Atomic Playboy
Member
I agree. I've been playing CS since Beta 4 in November of 1999, played every version (including Condition Zero!) and I HATE playing CS: GO. Hate every second of it. I cannot overstate how much I hate playing that game. But, here's the weird thing; I really, really like watching pro matches on it. I think it's the first time I've ever found a game that I like watching and hate playing. If I never play it again it will be too soon, but I'm really looking forward to the North v Fnatic best of 5 this weekend.
AlternativeUlster
Absolutely pathetic part deux
Witcher 3's combat > bloodborne's
I don't think I can get into Dark Souls.
Played 3 up to Lothric Castle twice and it was a boring slog. Replaying 1 as a Sorcerer this time for some variety and I'm at Anor Londo getting shot at by arrow snipers and I remembered that the entire second half of the game is shit. Every fight is slow plodding nonsense and if I didn't completely skip Blighttown I probably would have given up already.
What really confuses me is that Bloodborne is one of my favourite games of all time so I should be all over these two.
Played 3 up to Lothric Castle twice and it was a boring slog. Replaying 1 as a Sorcerer this time for some variety and I'm at Anor Londo getting shot at by arrow snipers and I remembered that the entire second half of the game is shit. Every fight is slow plodding nonsense and if I didn't completely skip Blighttown I probably would have given up already.
What really confuses me is that Bloodborne is one of my favourite games of all time so I should be all over these two.
-Mutsukki-
Member
More like you need to actually learn what critique is.
Greatest Ever
Member
I'm not seeing the controversy, sounds like you have a perfectly valid, different opinion on the game.
I'm pretty sure critical analysis rests on value judgments.
Like "x is a flawed or good way to achieve y and y is a thing a game should be trying to achieve."
If that isn't in conversation with what we take the quality of the game to be, what is going on? I mean, it certainly seems to be in conversation with it.
Tarextherex
Banned
Fumito Ueda is the J. Cole of video games
I mean...lol wut!? Who is the MF Doom (in my top 3 rappers of all time mind you) of video games?
klabautermann
Member
I don't have any qualms with this, Majora's is a great game and I understand people liking it over Wind Waker 100%. Wind Waker just has a super special place in my heart.
Spyder_Monkey
Banned
BoTW is the best designed game in the last 20 years.
Erwinadriansyah
Member
I don't know if anyone said this already, but I think Castlevania: Lords of Shadow 2 is a very good and satisfying game despite its numerous and obvious flaws.
Above all, I think it's a step in the right direction for 3D Castlevania.
Above all, I think it's a step in the right direction for 3D Castlevania.
CannonFodder52
Member
Mass Effect 1 was better than ME2.
I don't care for Uncharted or TLOU. Though I can understand why people love them.
Only a few hours into Horizon, but its not doing much for me(yet).
Nier Automata is easily up there with the best games of this gen.
I wanted to buy an XboxOne solely to play D4.
Haunting Ground is criminally underrated.
I don't care for Uncharted or TLOU. Though I can understand why people love them.
Only a few hours into Horizon, but its not doing much for me(yet).
Nier Automata is easily up there with the best games of this gen.
I wanted to buy an XboxOne solely to play D4.
Haunting Ground is criminally underrated.
Having completed Dark Souls 1, 2 and 3, and Platinum'd Bloodborne, I get where you're coming from, though it's kind of hard to describe.
I think of Bloodborne as Dark Souls with all the meat and none of the fat. There's almost-nothing in Bloodborne that is extraneous - it's all required, and none of it feels like a waste. The level design is fantastic, and there's always a feeling of accomplishment in exploring.
Dark Souls, by contrast, is flabby. It spends a little too much time here and there, and some of the exploration feels a let-down. Areas which are tiresome to get through, but you need to go through them to progress - like The Gutters. Areas of stupid cheese - like the Anor Londo archers.
The combat in Bloodborne also feels a lot more refined - even compared to Dark Souls 3. It's not perfect - guns are mostly a wasted opportunity, I feel - but it's still got something over the Dark Souls games.
So it makes sense what you're saying. Dark Souls games are definitely worth playing, but I don't think it's crazy to love BB and hate DS.
neurosisxeno
Member
It's an Adventure game because Nintendo wasn't comfortable calling it a shooter. At best it's a First Person Action Adventure game, but it's complicated by the fact that your interactions with a lot of enemies and objects is via shooting. I mean it's not an FPS in the sense that Skyrim is not an FPS, but it definitely isn't just an Adventure game. Metroid Prime is such a great game because it does a lot of different things from different genres very well.
A game usually has to achieve something for someone to like it, so "x is a flawed or good way to achieve y and y is a thing a game should be trying to achieve," is still a conversation you can have. Again, I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here.
Okay let's try this again, from another angle. Perhaps you've read the Euthyphro? I'll be taking cues from that:
Is the game good because it is liked?
Or is it good because it is likeable?
If the former, the goodness of the game is not about the game itself, rather the person liking the game.
If the latter, the goodness of the game is about the qualities of the game.
If it is not about the qualities of the game, then it it is not open to discussion and exploration, except in a post hoc, sophistical way that is not describing what is good about the game.
If it is about the qualities of the game, then we can interrogate that quality and have a critical discussion of the game.
...
Perhaps you are religious? Have you ever thought about the conflict between God being omnipotent and God being omnibenevolent? That discussion in the middle ages spins out of the Euthyphro. Is something pious, the right thing to do because God says it is, or does God respond to rightness and command the right thing?
If the former, there is no questioning or reasoning that opens up God's command, besides perhaps a psychological examination of God. If the latter, there can be discussion of what should be commanded and that is what God would command.
...
Bringing this back to games, consider that people (even the same person) do not always respond in the same way to the same things. Does a game blink out of being good with the vicissitudes of a personality? Is there no consistency in quality over what is good and bad if there is no consistency in taste in the person?
Is to be likeable just to be liked? If so, there is no room for critical analysis as to the quality of a game--as to what is a good thing to achieve and what is a good way to achieve it. There is only room for psychological inquiry as a way of trying to predict what someone may or may not like and what may or may not, therefore, be good.
(And the more functional/descriptive analysis you bring up, where certain goals are just handwaved as the target (perhaps the developer's intent, perhaps something a lot of people claim to like), for the purpose of conversation).
...
Perhaps, of course, we are all just geeking out and describing games and trying to find out how it is that they get to us and inexpertly discovering good qualities that aren't really what are doing the goodness work because we want there to be something in the object to hold onto and we want to be able to show the goodness to other people, when really, all that can actually happen is psychological conversion and not responsiveness to things in the game.
EDIT: And perhaps people who do see a difference between how much they like a game and its quality, such as myself, are just into adding sophistical garbage onto a phenomenon that doesn't actually give much room for introspection or critical thought, but...so much the worse for discussion in that case. Unless we just want to swap gaming stories, geek out together, and get pitchforks out together or we want to engage in continual sophistry. I'd rather see it as trying and sort of getting at something on the best days.
EDIT 2: Perhaps pointed questions help. Do you think people can be unfairly harsh on a game, which does things they otherwise seem to respond well to? Do you think people can have bad taste? If you think either of these things, you do not think simply being liked or not determines the quality of a game.
Moreover, this is not about subjectivity versus objectivity of quality. Sophisticated theories of subjectivity work to mimic objectivity.
Thx for this. It wasn't even controversial, it was simply wrong.
That1BlackGuy
Member
Quite frankly I find most discussion surrounding just about every aspect of video games to be needlessly antagonistic.
-Liberal use of hyperbole and/or stating their opinion in an objective fashion to get their point across.
-Use of intellectualism as a tool to position oneself as an authority/superior to someone with an opposing viewpoint.
-Passive aggressive/subliminal attacks for liking/disliking something someone else does/does not. No one should feel ostracized for liking a game the majority dislikes or disliking a game the majority likes. So long as discourse is kept respectful on both sides, all opinions should be welcome.
-Console Wars or this incessant need to attack a brand and downplay any positives of that platform while ignoring a majority if not all of your preferred platforms criticisms is unfathomable to me. Some are even emboldened enough to subliminally diss the owners of a platform. Among the worst are those that try to hide behind metrics such as sales and reviews to push their agenda or pretending concern to draw a reaction.
-Hot takes are seemingly more valued and given attention to than thought out statements.
-Aiming for "Gotchas" or cherry picking posts in order to "win" an argument.
-Ultimately, 95% of gaming discussions where there are opposing viewpoints usually devolve into arguments and no ones stances are changed or expanded, its just people repeatedly talking past each other in circles and in certain topics (on Neogaf at least) the exact same posters.
I am not stating this from a stance of moral superiority as thats not my intent (not to mention that would be hypocritical), I just feel that a strong portion of gaming discourse is driven from a place of hostility and if it is not, then thats where the discourse ultimately ends up regardless.
-Liberal use of hyperbole and/or stating their opinion in an objective fashion to get their point across.
-Use of intellectualism as a tool to position oneself as an authority/superior to someone with an opposing viewpoint.
-Passive aggressive/subliminal attacks for liking/disliking something someone else does/does not. No one should feel ostracized for liking a game the majority dislikes or disliking a game the majority likes. So long as discourse is kept respectful on both sides, all opinions should be welcome.
-Console Wars or this incessant need to attack a brand and downplay any positives of that platform while ignoring a majority if not all of your preferred platforms criticisms is unfathomable to me. Some are even emboldened enough to subliminally diss the owners of a platform. Among the worst are those that try to hide behind metrics such as sales and reviews to push their agenda or pretending concern to draw a reaction.
-Hot takes are seemingly more valued and given attention to than thought out statements.
-Aiming for "Gotchas" or cherry picking posts in order to "win" an argument.
-Ultimately, 95% of gaming discussions where there are opposing viewpoints usually devolve into arguments and no ones stances are changed or expanded, its just people repeatedly talking past each other in circles and in certain topics (on Neogaf at least) the exact same posters.
I am not stating this from a stance of moral superiority as thats not my intent (not to mention that would be hypocritical), I just feel that a strong portion of gaming discourse is driven from a place of hostility and if it is not, then thats where the discourse ultimately ends up regardless.
O.v.e.rlord
Banned
^^^ great post.
Edit: I fucking hated FFXV
Edit: I fucking hated FFXV
Hippolnareff
Member
Regarding Fallout 4 and Mass Effect: Andromeda, the things that fans of both series claim they don't like about those entries or at least what the developer did wrong with the games are things that I feel have been always been issues with the series.
Hammy writing and dodgy animation in a Mass Effect game? Sounds right.
Unlimited bugs and uninteresting quest structure full of forgettable characters? Yeah, that's Fallout, what's the problem?
I honestly think a lot of fans developed a better taste in games during those series' absence and have rose-tinted glasses on when looking back on previous entries.
Hammy writing and dodgy animation in a Mass Effect game? Sounds right.
Unlimited bugs and uninteresting quest structure full of forgettable characters? Yeah, that's Fallout, what's the problem?
I honestly think a lot of fans developed a better taste in games during those series' absence and have rose-tinted glasses on when looking back on previous entries.
ricardo_sousa11
Member
The Order 1886 is really nice.
I mean, anywhere you are going to go on the internet is a place for nuance and thought to die...just some places less so than others. Idk. NeoGAF is better than a lot of places in my experience, but, yes, everything you described is present here, perhaps even prevalent here, except for the intellectual thing.
Don't really ever see "I've got a degree in X, so shut up." More often than not, the educated perspectives are great on GAF, like the people with programming, computer hardware, game design backgrounds...there can be some really good stuff there.
If you mean something less egregious than that by this, idk. I don't see anything wrong with engaging when called upon to engage. Like above, Plato was always in the back of my mind. When I couldn't get through with short comments, why not be more open about where I was coming from? Why not be more explicit in the issue I saw with the view that "man is the measure of all things?"
I see nothing wrong in engaging openly.
...
Much of what you're describing I take to be a reflexive defense against argument. Take negative positions, they're easier to maintain. Be zealous and see no nuance, otherwise your opponent can use that nuance as a wedge. Say your piece and leave, and never experience the push back. Dog pile with likeminded individuals, so that numbers make you seem right instead of argument. Refuse to look at the content of your argument, because when all that matters is what is believed and not how it is used and arrived at, that belief is less assailable, etc.
I.e. it is a symptom of unwillingness to engage.
Mobile Suit Gooch
Grundle: The Awakening
Identity Politics don't belong in games. I rather devs focus on making great characters and not emphasize their identity that has nothing to do with the story.
I think Aloy is close to being a mary-sue.
It makes me sick seeing the same people throw Japan under the bus when it comes to depictions of women in games. Are sexualization and objectification the real issue? or is it because that it appeals to straight men? Like shit, some of over -the-top but damn.
I find Bayonetta out of the most empowering female characters out there.
I think Aloy is close to being a mary-sue.
It makes me sick seeing the same people throw Japan under the bus when it comes to depictions of women in games. Are sexualization and objectification the real issue? or is it because that it appeals to straight men? Like shit, some of over -the-top but damn.
I find Bayonetta out of the most empowering female characters out there.
You can have sexualised characters who aren't objectified, and sexualised characters that are empowering. But the stand against sexualised characters generally (and why I think Japan gets thrown under the bus) is because sexualisation purely for the purposes of titillating your target demographic is demeaning, excludes anyone who isn't your target demographic, and is ultimately pointless. Think of every panty shot in an otherwise non-sexual Japanese game, for instance. How does it sell the story? How does it make women who play the game feel? What is to be gained from it?
You want people to discuss depictions of women in games without addressing the biggest offenders?
Actually never mind, I get it.
GhostOfSparta305
Banned
Nice post!
gigantor21
Member
This may be the most controversial post of all.
The Uncharted series is shit (at least 1 - 3, not played 4 yet).
I expected to play something like Tomb Raider, with exploration and puzzles, but I got a third person Call of Duty: You run from arena to arena, shoot dozens of evil guys, then proceed to another arena and shoot more evil guys. Seriously, Nathan Drake is a psychopath, he murders hundreds of people and in the next sequence he talks like nothing happened.
Didn't have much fun playing those games.
I expected to play something like Tomb Raider, with exploration and puzzles, but I got a third person Call of Duty: You run from arena to arena, shoot dozens of evil guys, then proceed to another arena and shoot more evil guys. Seriously, Nathan Drake is a psychopath, he murders hundreds of people and in the next sequence he talks like nothing happened.
Didn't have much fun playing those games.
Triggerhappytel
Member
Sure, but from a technical perspective it's doing a lot of things you won't find in PS4 games - complete physics for everything in the game world (including wind and weather), the ability to cut down all trees, the ability to climb everything, weather that actually affects you and the environment (i.e. lightning can strike your metal weapons, rain makes surfaces too slippery to climb), and so on. It seems like a really smartly-designed sandbox playground, and I wish more games would focus on these things as opposed to just graphical advancement.
I don't think I've ever enjoyed it. I tolerated it in some games like Dragon's Dogma and Bloodborne, but in some games like The Witcher 3 and Dark Cloud it's just far too frequent and a fucking nuisance when it makes combat and exploration more bothersome than it needs to be. I don't think I've ever played a game where weapon durability wasn't just an added layer of bother.
That's why it's an action-RPG. An action game with some RPG systems; not an emphasis on the RPG side itself. But I think it's foolish to pretend this doesn't have RPG elements; getting XP for completing quests and destroying enemies, choosing upgrades for Aloy when you level-up, attaching items to weapons to make them more powerful, dialogue choices to shape the protagonist, and so on.
I hope there's more dinosaurs in Horizon 2! I want to see a big Spinosaurus that you can pit against the Thunderjaw, an Ankylosaur, a Diplodocus, a Triceratops, and more!
Lol. Between this and the posts linked in your tag, you sound really paranoid that people have it in for your poor sweet Nintendo!
Yeah, this is my pet hate on the forum. It's absolutely fucking maddening. I also hate when someone makes a topic and people respond with either a single game name or a list with no explanation or context. Like someone makes a topic called 'Best soundtracks' and someone makes a post just saying 'FTL', giving no explanation of why it's good or what it does well.
It certainly has its flaws, but I think the sum of its parts elevates it above individual elements. The only way I think it's particularly lacking is in the combat, and as mentioned above I hate the weapon durability system.
I mean, they're totally different genres, but I think the issue is more that The Wind Waker doesn't deserve a 96% average score. It's a really good game but I think a score of about 90% should be the absolute ceiling for it. But that's more of an issue I have with review scores in general, and I hate how anything below 80% is dismissed as poor for a 'Triple-A' game due to decades of being conditioned by bullshit reviews.
I haven't played MGSV, but I've thought he seemed like a pervert ever since there were multiple moments in MGS3 where you could stare at Eva's tits during cutscenes.
Rexatality
Member
I'm glad Prey 2 was cancelled.