Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 6789101112 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 118

Thread: Games that impacted you the most [POSSIBLE SPOILERS]

  1. #91
    Three Trio Tres Member wolfman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    England
    Posts
    373
    I still constantly play morrowind and oblivion, even daggerfall if I'm really bored and still consider them amazing games, i spent sooooo much time as a kid on morrowind, i don't see why people don't like the first person fighting or why people use the third person for anything but to look at their character

  2. #92
    Your Friendly Ban Hammer-er Rio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,724
    And now for something completely different...

    Quote Originally Posted by jubeh View Post
    Man you knew it was coming if you played the previous phantasy stars. Always gotta kill of somebody cool and always gotta trick you into thinking you know how the final boss will be.
    That's the funny thing - I started with IV and worked my way backwards in the series. :C

    Those bastards! :shakes fist:

  3. #93
    Fenn
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by ClockHand View Post
    What subjective opinion? If the consensus says that Twilight is the best book ever wrote, then they are right? fuck no! that's why when we develop judgments of something "good" vs "bad" is done over justifications and arguments, that in the case of video games, movies, books and others, have already points that delimit something good vs something bad.
    You can only argue for something when you define what you're arguing. For all I know "best" could mean most pages, or most sales, or the best cumulative reviews from major websites.

    You're saying
    If the consensus says that Twilight is the best book ever wrote, then they are right? fuck no!
    Without even suggestion what "best" implies.

    Wheras I provided a possible DEFINITION of what good could mean: "desirable." And since there is clearly a large population of fans who find Twilight desirable, Twilight must be a good series. It makes no difference whether it's cliche, cheesy, unsophisticated, or any other possible "justification" you can give for it being bad because that isn't how "good" was being defined.

    Quote Originally Posted by ClockHand View Post
    I agree, those are subjective statements, but there is a difference between a subjective statement with an justified opinion. See again the points I gave about why Oblivion sucks.
    If you want to define what traits define a game that "sucks" AND AFTERWARDS apply that, to Oblivion, then you're argument will hold it's ground. Which you did. And did quite well. But I thought you were trying to apply this to the objective value of Oblivion. If I read your post, it seems a game that "sucks"...okay now I can't find your points what post # are they on?

    Quote Originally Posted by ClockHand View Post
    Argument = Justification = Opinion with relevance.
    Again, you didn't read my points in why Oblivion suck, and if you want to keep fighting this, gave me a reason in why oblivion doesn't suck. You are discussing about "opinion with arguments =/= fact", while I have never said my opinion is a fact, I just said that oblivion was a bad game and gave my reasons to it, unless you gave me your reason's why Oblivion is not bad, then you are just digging a hole for yourself.
    I never argued Oblivon doesn't suck. I argued if it truly sucked outside of your personal opinion then the majority of people who played it wouldn't have enjoyed it. I don't exactly have stats to say whether most people liked or disliked it though; I haven't read that many reviews on it though

    I judge games based on how well they fulfilled their end purpose: enjoyment. I subjectively find good games to be ones I enjoyed, and bad ones to be games I didn't. I objectively define good games as games that most people enjoyed playing, and bad games as those most people did not enjoy playing.

    Therefore:
    - A game with high sales/high enjoyment = good (Call of Duty--don't argue most people don't enjoy it, because if they didn't the sequels wouldn't have sold)
    - A game with low sales/high enjoyment = good (Beyond Good and Evil)
    - A game with high sales/low enjoyment = bad (not very common, any examples?)
    - A game with low sales/low enjoyment = bad (Wii Music--lol)

    I can't see how you can classify the objective value of a game any differently than that.

    Quote Originally Posted by ClockHand View Post
    Moral of the story: read the beginning of the discussion, not the end.
    I read the whole discussion. I think think the whole conflict of the argument started because you were arguing your subjective experience and judgment while Jubeh was defending the game's objective value. Thus, you were agruing two completely separate views.

  4. #94
    Super Senior Member CypressDahlia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,317
    But that logic, Fenn, you are suggesting that people never enjoy bad things. Soulja Boy, by all standards of lyricism, was the shittiest thing to ever exist, but a lot of people enjoyed his songs. In other words, what people like does not always reflect the highest standard of the respective medium. If anything, it reflects high accessibility and popularity (CoD). That's about it.

    I guess a more relevant example of this would be the fighting game scene. This is referencing a brotalk I had w/ Jubeh when MvC3 came out. People like unbalanced fighting games. They prefer large tier discrepancies and overpowered characters, possibly for the variety, possibly because they're tier-whores and possibly for the high stakes. Objectively speaking, a game should offer more than one reliable method of success (jetpacking in Reach, camping in CoD, tier-whoring in whatever fighter). Sirlin (fighting game vet) is pretty much the best example of what I'm talking about. When it came to playing, he advocated "playing to win", which meant using the "cheapest" tactics and giving yourself the biggest possible hard advantages like OP characters. When it came time for him to DESIGN a game (Turbo HD Remix), he decided to make it as balanced as possible. Does that mean he didn't enjoy playing unbalanced games? No. He did, despite the fact that it went against his standard for what a fighting game should be. It's just that, when it came down to deciding what was BEST for HD Turbo Remix by the standards of the medium, he decided it should be very balanced.

    So yeah.
    Last edited by CypressDahlia; 09-12-2011 at 01:27 PM.

  5. #95
    Fenn
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by CypressDahlia View Post
    But that logic, Fenn, you are suggesting that people never enjoy bad things.
    Not at all, I never implied something that black and white. I said that with good games, the number of people who enjoy the music outnumber the number of people who do not by a significant ratio, and vise-versa with bad game. The total number of people who like-dislike a game is not as important as the ratio between them.

    Quote Originally Posted by CypressDahlia View Post
    Soulja Boy, by all standards of lyricism, was the shittiest thing to ever exist, but a lot of people enjoyed his songs. In other words, what people like does not always reflect the highest standard of the respective medium. If anything, it reflects high accessibility and popularity (CoD). That's about it.
    Your second sentence is crucial. You said people's likes and the highest standards of the industry are not always the same. So now the question becomes one of perspective. If Clock is arguing the quality of Oblivion with relation to industry standards, which I suspect he is, then he's made a great, justified argument.

    By that same reasoning, though, I see little reason to value the industry standard over the enjoyment of the consumer(s) when arguing a game's objective value. If the two aren't one in the same, I'd rather argue that a game is good based on people's enjoyment than on the notion of a "standard" which, in truth, is less clear cut than the word suggests since you don't make games with the ultimate goal of reaching the highest industry standard, but with the goal of creating a game to...

    ...well, the honest answer is profit. But with respect to the gamer, as opposed to the developer, games are meant to provide enjoyment in a number of ways. That is their purpose, their goal. This entertainment is not entirely dependant on the game's value relative to industry standards, as your Souldja Boy example proves.

    (Sidenote: enjoyment does not just prove accessibility and popularity. Quite to the contrary, most people who played Beyond Good and Evil enjoyed it, so by the enjoyment standards I've set it is a good game. Yet it's hardly considered mainstream or popular.)


    Quote Originally Posted by CypressDahlia View Post
    I guess a more relevant example of this would be the fighting game scene. This is referencing a brotalk I had w/ Jubeh when MvC3 came out. People like unbalanced fighting games. They prefer large tier discrepancies and overpowered characters, possibly for the variety, possibly because they're tier-whores and possibly for the high stakes. Objectively speaking, a game should offer more than one reliable method of success (jetpacking in Reach, camping in CoD, tier-whoring in whatever fighter). Sirlin (fighting game vet) is pretty much the best example of what I'm talking about. When it came to playing, he advocated "playing to win", which meant using the "cheapest" tactics and giving yourself the biggest possible hard advantages like OP characters. When it came time for him to DESIGN a game (Turbo HD Remix), he decided to make it as balanced as possible. Does that mean he didn't enjoy playing unbalanced games? No. He did, despite the fact that it went against his standard for what a fighting game should be. It's just that, when it came down to deciding what was BEST for HD Turbo Remix by the standards of the medium, he decided it should be very balanced.

    So yeah.
    I think I answered this above, but due to a major need to procrastinate further I'll reiterate. Judging games based on the standards of the medium, as you eloquently put it, is a perfectly valid way to evaluate a game. However, I don't feel it is the best way to evaluate the objective value of a game because it does not adequately reflect the purpose of a game: to provide entertainment.

    Entertainment is the ultimate goal of a video game for the gamer. Thus enjoyment is the most accurate way to reflect the objective value and/or success of a game.

  6. #96
    Fifty Fifty Member Bacon_Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Elizabeth's Court
    Posts
    5,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Superdooperphailmachine View Post
    D&D has taken around 90% of my free time over the past 2-3 years.
    Good man.

    Oh, Pokemon has also actually impacted my life. I had a lot of trouble reading when iI as little, and then I learned how so I could play Crystal.
    My CC thread - Updated 01/30/14
    My AA thread - Updated 03/04/14

  7. #97
    Super Senior Member CypressDahlia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,317
    Fenn, a game has to have a good balance between providing entertainment and meeting the standard for the medium. CoD is good in the sense that people enjoy it. I do not deny that people enjoy it. But because people enjoy it does not make it a good game, just an enjoyable one. That is the distinction I am trying to make. You are talking about success, we are talking about core gaming principles.

  8. #98
    Fenn
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by CypressDahlia View Post
    Fenn, a game has to have a good balance between providing entertainment and meeting the standard for the medium. CoD is good in the sense that people enjoy it. I do not deny that people enjoy it. But because people enjoy it does not make it a good game, just an enjoyable one. That is the distinction I am trying to make. You are talking about success, we are talking about core gaming principles.
    ...

    I do not deny that people enjoy it. But because people enjoy it does not make it a good game, just an enjoyable one.


    Okay, before I go any farther, define what you mean by good. What do you mean by good? I gave you my definition: desireable. And the best way to know if a game is desirable is if people enjoy the game. So what is your definition of an objectively "good" game? What is "good"?

    Also, objective here doesn't mean factual, but relating to everyone, as opposed to a spefici individual, a.k.a subjective.

  9. #99
    Super Senior Member CypressDahlia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,317
    "Good" means it satisfies all the conventions of the genre, is well balanced, offers satisfying gameplay, tight controls, is graphically and audibly appealing and is fun. No matter how much people "like" it, whether or not a game meets these standards if entirely of the game. Even if nobody played a game if it met these standards it would be good. Not successful, but good. Likewise, even if people "liked" a game, if it's entirely unbalanced, slapdash in its genre placement, offers bad player feedback, has laggy controls, nearly inaudible/muddy audio and graphics that made playing the game a hassle due to vision limitations and such, it would be bad. I don't think anyone would LIKE a game like that, but just giving examples of how a game can suffer in each of those categories on a standardized level.

    And if games were built around desirability, it would spell the end of gaming forever. Rarely do gamers desire anything outside of the realm of "what needs to be changed to improve my chances of winning? What will help me, as an individual or niche player, succeed and what is impeding my success?" In other words, CoD would degenerate into MW2's multiplayer. Which is why I brought up the example of Sirlin. He "desired" unbalanced gameplay when it was to his advantage but, when it came down to designing a --good-- game, he upheld the conventions of the genre and chose to balance it as well as possible. That is what I'm talking about: the distinction between success/accessibility/desirability, whatever you wanna call it, and just being GOOD.
    Last edited by CypressDahlia; 09-12-2011 at 06:29 PM.

  10. #100
    Regular Member Lucy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    222
    The game which affected me most, I think, is Nethack. Never used to do anything risky ever, not in games and not in real life. That game pushed me out of the box a bit with its hang-around-and-a-gnome-will-zap-a-wand-of-death, you-are-never-safe mentality. That game taught me to be a go-get-'em pragmatist.

    My hyphen key feels like it's recieved an unnecessary amount of lovin' now.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •