x2 said:
:lol
Well put.
I have come to realize, especially through doing podcasts and such, that my taste in games is
very different from most of the people that come to this board. I generally like sports games and generally don't like RPG's. That explains nearly half of the discussions I've had on this board about video games.
"the only exclusive that i don't like for the ps3 is little big planet, it just don't grab my attention, it reminds me of pikmin "
Yes, that is very uncharacteristic of you. :lol
I was also pleasantly reminded of Pikmin when I saw the first ever LBP trailer.
Strubes said:
I disagree with some of the others...but this is probably the worst. I've seen some pretty bad games sell alot. Pirates of the Caribean At World's End was like the 6th best selling game of 2006/07? whenever it came out. But anyways :lol
Haha, allow me a brief moment of explanation.
I'll be the first to admit sales are not always accurate in reflecting whether or not a game is "good" or "bad." I thoroughly enjoy many games that sold poorly, and despise many games that sold well. However, I think what I was getting at in that thread had to do with objectively categorizing games as good or bad. By removing my personal opinions from a game, and removing my expectations of what a game should be, I think sales are a good way of determining whether or not a game is "good" in the greater sense of: is it finding an audience and connecting with people? I think, objectively speaking, the only way to rate a development studio's success in making a game is by finding out how many people are playing their game because they enjoy it. Just because I personally don't like the Pirates of the Caribbean game, that doesn't mean its
bad, and clearly if its one of the top ten selling games for a whole year it is doing something exceptionally
good. In this specific case it chose a theme that people really enjoy, so much so that the other aspects of the game were not a major concern for people who played it.
If a game is critically acclaimed but fails to find an audience then there is something crucially wrong with it. Or perhaps, more accurately, there is something crucially wrong with a rating system that fails to represent how a game is going to be received by the public. This is why so much talk about hardcore gamers versus casual ones has come up, because the "hardcore" is no longer the majority, and there is a certain amount of resentment harbored by the "hardcore" for casual gamers and the popularity of casual games, which leads to the notion that "casual" video games are somehow, by their very nature, worse. I also think that, as time goes on and gaming expands to an even wider audience, the "hardcore" segment of gamers are going to have to realize that the ideas they have for how video games
ought to be played are going to become rather outdated. Critics are part of this hardcore segment that hold to the same marginalized and outdated notions of what makes a game "good" or "bad," and the idea that game developers ought to make critically acclaimed games
for critics is absurd. What's the use in writing an award winning novel if nobody ever reads it? The award may signify an accomplishment, but again, if no one notices the accomplishment then what's the point of the award? Accomplishment for accomplishment's sake may be an admirable pursuit if the goal is inward and individual, but for a video game designer and developer personal accomplishment is a rather hollow endeavor.
Too Human is a really good example of someone who wanted to make a statement and make a video game they
personally thought was great, but failed to communicate that through the game itself. Ultimately, the game was a failure. So if critics can't be trusted as judges of success, and the game makers themselves can't be trusted as judges of success, how anyone say that actual gamers voting with their dollars are wrong in buying what they like and passing on what they dislike? By what rubric is Too Human (or any other game you feel was too visionary/involved/high-concept to be passed over by the average gamer) considered
good, when it fails to find an audience or resonate with people, and a game like Wii Music
bad, when it speaks to and amuses a large number of gamers?
If simplicity and gimmicks, dare I even say "waggle," are considered ideal traits in a game by the vast majority of people playing games, who are we to tell them Wii Play and Wii Music are
bad games? Bad by whose standards? Archaic standards which are currently ill-equipped to judge a modern day video game? Does our categorization of it as bad mean people aren't going to have fun with it? And how do you tell someone who does enjoy Wii Music that it
is a bad game, and that they ought to dislike it?
Just some thoughts... :lol
:lol
I envy the Jackels that get to run about playing with their fancy Energy Sheilds. I think it's about ime that we got the chance to use it against them! Though the sheild is useless to an extent against a trained player. I still think that the thought of combining it with a Energy Sword is a great idea. Especially after the last bit of sword play I had with my mates.
