Whats up with videogame reviews?

[Alex]

So, im reading game informer, who i usualy feel are pretty honest, and i come to two pages, halo 3 on the left, mass effect on the right.
They both got 9.75, almost perfect scores, but in the text of the review, i noticed something.
Mass Effect is sucked off hardcore, they stop right before saying it's the most important game ever made.
Halo 3, they point out the graphics aren't really better then halo 2, the gameplay hasn't changed much, the campaign is boring, and pretty much the only good thing is multiplayer.
So...why is it getting the same score when they talk down about it so much?

[StreetFighterRyu]

I think sometimes they just rate and commet. Like Amazon.com. I've seen games with poor ratings and really good comments and vice versa. So really, is just that funny.

And btw Halo 3 has better graphics. I don't know what they're talking about. And I was playing it on a reagular TV. Not HD. And it still looks that good. On HD it looked more detailed. So again, it's graphics is better than Halo 2.

[Sanagi]

They only put the numbers there to make people argue about them on the internet.

[Serik]

Videogame "journalism" is a crock. Far too many games receive 8+/10, thereby diminishing the relevance of reviews. Halo doesn't deserve an almost perfect score; it's a competent but resoundingly unoriginal and uninspired shooter. It deserves a 7, which isn't a bad score if reviewers opened up the 10 scale instead of clustering everything around 8, 9, and 10.

Also keep in mind that many videogame publications can't afford to piss off game companies. If the game publishers stop buying ads, who're you gonna get to take up the space instead?

[Thorlief]

that's why I made myself a list with a two different categories: Reviewers who sometimes can be trusted and Reviewers I don't give a Rat's arse about

[Karl H]

Magazines are dependent upon exclusive content to up their sales, be it screenshots, early review copies whatever. Now if you're promoting a game, are you gonna give it to a magazine that writes favourable reviews which you can then use in your own promotion or someone who tells it like it is?

It's that simple.

[Jabuka]

So, im reading game informer, who i usualy feel are pretty honest, and i come to two pages, halo 3 on the left, mass effect on the right.
They both got 9.75, almost perfect scores, but in the text of the review, i noticed something.
Mass Effect is sucked off hardcore, they stop right before saying it's the most important game ever made.
Halo 3, they point out the graphics aren't really better then halo 2, the gameplay hasn't changed much, the campaign is boring, and pretty much the only good thing is multiplayer.
So...why is it getting the same score when they talk down about it so much?

And then Halo3 got the game of the months which to me made it more confusing

[Black Atom]

I don't even bother with any reviewer with a rating system that goes past 5. Honestly, a 9.75 rating seems so stupidly arbitrary, that it's a waste of anyone's time. Jesus, this isn't Cannes. There's only 3 things you need to consider when reviewing a game: Avoid, rent or buy.

[EmeraldOutlaw]

that's why I made myself a list with a two different categories: Reviewers who sometimes can be trusted and Reviewers I don't give a Rat's arse about

Same goes for me, man. The list also includes which reviewers I can (to the best of my knowledge) consider impartial. Just seems to make more sense to me to get your reviews from a site like IGN or Gamespot than from, for example, Xbox Magazine or Playstation Magazine. Maybe it's just me.

[Thorlief]

Same goes for me, man. The list also includes which reviewers I can (to the best of my knowledge) consider impartial. Just seems to make more sense to me to get your reviews from a site like IGN or Gamespot than from, for example, Xbox Magazine or Playstation Magazine. Maybe it's just me.

definitely. I'd also like to point out that my list of Truster reviewers is like two names, and the other is as long as the Code of Hammurabi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi)

[Serik]

There's always Metacritic

I also like Yahtzee's "reviews"
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/zeropunctuation

[Astonishing X-Fan]

Videogame "journalism" is a crock. Far too many games receive 8+/10, thereby diminishing the relevance of reviews. Halo doesn't deserve an almost perfect score; it's a competent but resoundingly unoriginal and uninspired shooter. It deserves a 7, which isn't a bad score if reviewers opened up the 10 scale instead of clustering everything around 8, 9, and 10.



But that's YOUR opinion. A lot of people, including me and many reviewers, disagree with you, and believe it deserves a high score.

Just because you say it doesn't deserve it doesn't mean the reviewer feels the same way.

[Alex]

And then Halo3 got the game of the months which to me made it more confusing

Heres the real test.
They probably do a year end thing, Bioshock got a perfect score, so, its the perfect game according to them.
Will Halo 3 get the fake award though?

[Alex]

But that's YOUR opinion. A lot of people, including me and many reviewers, disagree with you, and believe it deserves a high score.

Just because you say it doesn't deserve it doesn't mean the reviewer feels the same way.

Thats my thing though.
The text of the review says 7, the score says 9.75.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

Heres the real test.
They probably do a year end thing, Bioshock got a perfect score, so, its the perfect game according to them.
Will Halo 3 get the fake award though?

The don't base year-end rewards around one reviewer, I doubt it. Most likely it's the collective opinion of everyone relevant on the staff. It's usually not the exact same reviewer doing EVERY review.

[Black Atom]

Videogame "journalism" is a crock. Far too many games receive 8+/10, thereby diminishing the relevance of reviews. Halo doesn't deserve an almost perfect score; it's a competent but resoundingly unoriginal and uninspired shooter. It deserves a 7, which isn't a bad score if reviewers opened up the 10 scale instead of clustering everything around 8, 9, and 10.

"Originality" can make a game more entertaining, but it's certainly not a requirement. I prefer it not be a consideration for dinging games, really.

[Thorlief]

well, assuming that's true then Microsoft can release Halo 12 and still get a 9.5

originality does count to a certain extent

[Agent Helix]

"Originality" can make a game more entertaining, but it's certainly not a requirement. I prefer it not be a consideration for dinging games, really.

If a game is completely derivative, it should be penalized for it, at least in the text of the review. Games don't have to break new ground every second, but if you're playing the same-old same-old after years and years, I think the shine wears off.

Granted, I think this more applies to developers copying other people's crap, less their own. Of course every Halo game is going to play like the Halo games that came before.

[EmeraldOutlaw]

If a game is completely derivative, it should be penalized for it, at least in the text of the review. Games don't have to break new ground every second, but if you're playing the same-old same-old after years and years, I think the shine wears off.

Granted, I think this more applies to developers copying other people's crap, less their own. Of course every Halo game is going to play like the Halo games that came before.

You're right about Halo. The foundation of the gameplay remains the same but the developers do add enough new content to keep it cool (for the most part).

But I think the originality factor does come into play with regards to most reviews. Most of the time, if the reviewer isn't on the developer's payroll, they'll point out the flaws in the repetition or will compliment it if the repetition works.

[Serik]

Halo 3 is a solid, well-polished game. But awarding it a 9 puts it in the same league as Half-Life or Deus Ex -- and it clearly doesn't belong there. Everything Halo does has been done better years ago. I honestly don't get the hype surrounding the series.

[Black Atom]

Halo 3 is a solid, well-polished game. But awarding it a 9 puts it in the same league as Half-Life or Deus Ex -- and it clearly doesn't belong there. Everything Halo does has been done better years ago. I honestly don't get the hype surrounding the series.

Halo's popularity/acclaim comes almost purely from the superb multiplayer experience it offers to people who can't afford gaming PCs.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

Halo 3 is a solid, well-polished game. But awarding it a 9 puts it in the same league as Half-Life or Deus Ex -- and it clearly doesn't belong there. Everything Halo does has been done better years ago. I honestly don't get the hype surrounding the series.

Multiplayer.

[Serik]

If you've never seen a car before, then a Toyota Tercel would probably seem pretty awesome. But if you go from a Corvette to a Tercel, you'd know what you're missing. :D

I guess because I've played online FPS games for 10 years now, nothing in Halo is "OMG WOW!!!" But many of the Halo fans I know have never played that sort of game before, so they're understandably excited about it.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

If you've never seen a car before, then a Toyota Tercel would probably seem pretty awesome. But if you go from a Corvette to a Tercel, you'd know what you're missing. :D

I guess because I've played online FPS games for 10 years now, nothing in Halo is "OMG WOW!!!" But many of the Halo fans I know have never played that sort of game before, so they're understandably excited about it.

Not everyone enjoys PC gaming.

Not to mention console gaming and PC gaming are different beasts entirely. One shouldn't be used to set the standard for the other. Yeah, PC gaming had online MP first. But can I invite three friends over so we can all play co-op together on a PC? Nope.

It's like any time a console game has any kind of modding application(like H3's Forge). You always get the people who are like "Whatever, PC gaming has had modding forever!"

That's not the bloody point.

Console gaming is not PC gaming.

"It's been done on the PC" does not diminish something done on a console.

And when it comes to console gaming, Halo's MP is in the upper elite in gaming history.

That is why it is so beloved.

[EmeraldOutlaw]

Not everyone enjoys PC gaming.

Not to mention console gaming and PC gaming are different beasts entirely. One shouldn't be used to set the standard for the other. Yeah, PC gaming had online MP first. But can I invite three friends over so we can all play co-op together on a PC? Nope.

It's like any time a console game has any kind of modding application(like H3's Forge). You always get the people who are like "Whatever, PC gaming has had modding forever!"

That's not the bloody point.

Console gaming is not PC gaming.

"It's been done on the PC" does not diminish something done on a console.


Preachin' to the choir, man. :p

[Agent Helix]

I think consoles have matured to the point where it's fair to compare Halo 3 to some of the better PC shooters. You can't have it both ways. Either consoles get to play with the big boys and be judged on the same criteria, or they're just not at that level.

Considering how much consoles are leaning towards being "multimedia entertainment" rather than just game machines (i.e. PC-lite), then it's not unfair at all to point out that no, compared to a lot of good FPS games, Halo 3 really doesn't stand up all that well. It's well made, but it's a very average game. It has fun multiplayer, but an extraordinarily shoddy single player experience, and if you don't think that makes a difference, then you're frankly just wrong. If Halo 3 were JUST multiplayer, like TF2 (which is also way better, I might add), then you wouldn't have to factor it in. But in comparison to games available just on the same console, such as HL2 and Bioshock, it absolutely pales. It's monotonous, simplistic, and frankly just not that great.

[Thorlief]

I don't even consider 8 vs 8 a good online multiplayer experience. The fun begins with 16 vs 16 to me, and ends with 32 vs 32 as seen in RTCW. Now that's some goddamn funny mess of a brawl

[jesse_custer]

The one thing that irks me in video game reviews is when reviewers dock points or complain because of a lack of voice acting. Very baffling, since 99 percent of the time voice acting in games sucks pretty hard (especially when it's extensive voice acting). I always feel relieved when a game doesn't have voice acting (thank you, Twilight Princess).

[Black Atom]

I think consoles have matured to the point where it's fair to compare Halo 3 to some of the better PC shooters. You can't have it both ways. Either consoles get to play with the big boys and be judged on the same criteria, or they're just not at that level.

Considering how much consoles are leaning towards being "multimedia entertainment" rather than just game machines (i.e. PC-lite), then it's not unfair at all to point out that no, compared to a lot of good FPS games, Halo 3 really doesn't stand up all that well. It's well made, but it's a very average game. It has fun multiplayer, but an extraordinarily shoddy single player experience, and if you don't think that makes a difference, then you're frankly just wrong. If Halo 3 were JUST multiplayer, like TF2 (which is also way better, I might add), then you wouldn't have to factor it in. But in comparison to games available just on the same console, such as HL2 and Bioshock, it absolutely pales. It's monotonous, simplistic, and frankly just not that great.

That's like dinging Street Fighter for having a crappy story. I mean, there are fighters that have decent stories/singleplay story modes, like Soul Calibur, and that's really cool, but any reviewer that docks points off a fighter for having a crummy story should get kicked in the nads.

I know there's the case being made for video games as art, but at $60 a pop, the choice is always going to come down to how much fun I'm getting out of it over technical achievements and I hope my reviewer is looking at it the same way.

[Agent Helix]

That's like dinging Street Fighter for having a crappy story. I mean, there are fighters that have decent stories/singleplay story modes, like Soul Calibur, and that's really cool, but any reviewer that docks points off a fighter for having a crummy story should get kicked in the nads.

I know there's the case being made for video games as art, but at $60 a pop, the choice is always going to come down to how much fun I'm getting out of it over technical achievements and I hope my reviewer is looking at it the same way.

No it isn't. The Halo "franchise" has been sold on the strength of its single player campaign in addition to its multiplayer capabilities since day one. The multiplayer is fine, but the promised single player experience is severely lacking in comparison to other games of the same genre. That's NOT an unfair criticism or comparison to make, no matter what people seem to think.

[jesse_custer]

By the way, the story in Soul Caliber is forgettable, full of cliches, and just unbelievably lame in general. Seems like the product of a nine-year-old.

[Agent Helix]

Yeah, but it's Soul Calibur.

[jesse_custer]

Not knocking the gameplay. But I think Street Fighter, in all its simplicity and stereotyping, actually has a more interesting and enjoyable storyline than Soul Caliber.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

I think consoles have matured to the point where it's fair to compare Halo 3 to some of the better PC shooters. You can't have it both ways. Either consoles get to play with the big boys and be judged on the same criteria, or they're just not at that level.

Considering how much consoles are leaning towards being "multimedia entertainment" rather than just game machines (i.e. PC-lite), then it's not unfair at all to point out that no, compared to a lot of good FPS games, Halo 3 really doesn't stand up all that well. It's well made, but it's a very average game. It has fun multiplayer, but an extraordinarily shoddy single player experience, and if you don't think that makes a difference, then you're frankly just wrong. If Halo 3 were JUST multiplayer, like TF2 (which is also way better, I might add), then you wouldn't have to factor it in. But in comparison to games available just on the same console, such as HL2 and Bioshock, it absolutely pales. It's monotonous, simplistic, and frankly just not that great.

You are in the minority opinion though, as tons of people, including reviewers, loved H3's campaign.

And it IS a great campaign. What's so "shoddy" about it?

HL2's campaign may have nifty physics stuff and all that...but Halo 3's SP experience is just fun, fun, FUN! And that's what matters the most. It is an EXCELLENT single-player game because of the epic and exciting feeling in almost every battle, where enemies frantically strategize to beat you, grenades are flying everywhere, at a breakneck pace. And the vehicular combat is a blast. Compare HL2's BORING vehicle missions to when you get your first ride in a tank in H3.

I fail to see how HL2 or all these other PC games are so much better than Halo 3, a legitamately FUN game.

Not to mention, as I said before, H3 lets me have friends over so we can play campaign together. HL2 can't compete with that.

[Black Atom]

No it isn't. The Halo "franchise" has been sold on the strength of its single player campaign in addition to its multiplayer capabilities since day one. The multiplayer is fine, but the promised single player experience is severely lacking in comparison to other games of the same genre. That's NOT an unfair criticism or comparison to make, no matter what people seem to think.

If you say so. I mean, Bungie hypes the storyline up to tease people, but they usually spend a lot more time showing off the multiplayer features to get people really excited.


By the way, the story in Soul Caliber is forgettable, full of cliches, and just unbelievably lame in general. Seems like the product of a nine-year-old.

In other words, you don't like it. In either case, it's undeniable that Soul Calibur has put more emphasis on weaving some kind of story than something like Street Fighter has.

But I actually rather like how they've drawn on a variety of heroic myth archetypes to weave their story.

[Serik]

HL2 can't compete with that.

Depends on who your friends are. I usually end up going to one LAN party a month and HL2 DM usually gets played at some point. Granted, it's not as simple as Xbox, but if you have PC gamer friends, nothing can beat a LAN party :D

[Astonishing X-Fan]

Depends on who your friends are. I usually end up going to one LAN party a month and HL2 DM usually gets played at some point. Granted, it's not as simple as Xbox, but if you have PC gamer friends, nothing can beat a LAN party :D

And even after your friends lug their computers to your house and go to all the trouble of setting them out, you still can't play the campaign together.

[asloveislost]

but there is a co-op mod for half-life 2 campaign...

[Astonishing X-Fan]

fan-made mod's are not part of the game, and do not count when comparing them.

If someone somehow managed to hack in a gravity gun into Halo 3, that doesn't make it part of the game itself.

That's why they're called "mods"...because they are MODIFYING the game.

It's simple. HL2 out of the box and H3 out of the box, playing both games as they were created and not tinkered with by outside sources...Halo 3 is the only one of the two that allows friends to play the campaign together.

Earlier in this thread, someone implied that H3's campaign was "shoddy" compared to HL2's. Yet Halo's not only packs in more and better action, it allows more than one person to work together playing through it. And I think anyone who's played Halo co-op can attest that it adds a LOT to the experience. An experience that HL2 simply doesn't provide on it's own.

The point is, Halo 3 might not be as "artistic" or "original" as HL2 or other games you may compare it with...

But Halo 3 is simply FUN. And fun is what counts the most. It's a game that literally has millions of fans who find playing it to be an absolute blast, giving them epic battles and exciting gunplay and smart enemy AI and excellent multiplayer, both co-op and against each other.

It may not be doing anything NEW...but it does everything RIGHT. And makes everything FUN.

And THAT is why it deserves the high scores.

[Alex]

Earlier in this thread, someone implied that H3's campaign was "shoddy" compared to HL2's. Yet Halo's not only packs in more and better action,

I think thats a matter of opinion, isn't it?
Halo 3s campaign is almost entirely devoid of original ideas, whereas you passed off the real changes Half Life 2 added to the genre as "nifty physics stuff".
Then theres the fact that Half Life 2 sets up a setting and tells a story while the actual gameplay is going on, and...yknow, Ravenholm being one of the best designed sections to an FPS ever.
But thats the series deal, that was the biggest contribution Half Life made to the genre. It proved that an FPS could tell a story, and it didn't need to do it by taking the player out of the game.
Halo was never about the story, it was about kick ass FPS action, and i will agree that it's by far the best in console FPS, and has the best multiplayer you can find (and said multiplayer, imo, rivals that of most current PC FPS games).
But it isn't attempting to blow you away with it's story, it wasn't trying to add anything to the genre.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

The thing is, HL2 has all this innovative stuff...but the combat itself is lacking. And combat is the foundation of a FPS.

I hated Ravenholm. Artistically it was great, but the zombies are crappy enemies. They're not fun to fight, they're just annoying.

All the artistic direction and story in the world doesn't mean a thing to me if the combat isn't all that. Firefights in Halo are so much more fun and bombastic and strategic than in HL2, where most of the time the enemies just kind of stand there and shoot. Even the much-hated flood is a lot better than the zombies to fight.

"But it isn't attempting to blow you away with it's story, it wasn't trying to add anything to the genre."

Which is the original point: Halo 3 may not do anything NEW...but it does do everything WELL...which is why it deserves it's high scores.

[jesse_custer]

The thing is, HL2 has all this innovative stuff...but the combat itself is lacking. And combat is the foundation of a FPS.

Traditionally, yes. But games like Half Life 2 and Metroid Prime are redefining the genre, pushing it in different directions. All I can say is it's about damn time. The genre had been conceptually stagnant for a long time before these titles.

And Halo 3 ... been there, done that. It would be one thing if the FPS genre wasn't already overcrowded with clones and cliches, but it is (in fact, it may be the genre with the most unoriginal games).

[Serik]

Plus HL2 has the gravity gun (and the portal gun if you want to mess around with it). I can't tell you how much fun I have just thinking of new ways to throw barrels, sawblades, and stoves at hordes of zombies and/or Combine :D

[Thorlief]

Which is the original point: Halo 3 may not do anything NEW...but it does do everything WELL...which is why it deserves it's high scores.



Halo 15 getting 9.5'ed confirmed

[Astonishing X-Fan]

Halo 15 getting 9.5'ed confirmed

and if it's as fun as Halo 3, it'll deserve it.

[asloveislost]

fan-made mod's are not part of the game, and do not count when comparing them.

If someone somehow managed to hack in a gravity gun into Halo 3, that doesn't make it part of the game itself.

That's why they're called "mods"...because they are MODIFYING the game.


I know what a mod is you dont have to describe it in a patronising way.
What you said before was


And even after your friends lug their computers to your house and go to all the trouble of setting them out, you still can't play the campaign together.

So that is why i said that there was a way to play Half-Life 2 campaign cooperatively.

[Lester C.]

Gamespot generally does a very good job. However they do tend to come down harder on rpgs than they should but that is open to debate.

[jesse_custer]

If you equate "fun" with getting ripped off because you're buying the same game, then yes, Halo deserves more than a 9.5. It deserves a 20.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

If you equate "fun" with getting ripped off because you're buying the same game, then yes, Halo deserves more than a 9.5. It deserves a 20.

:rolleyes:

If it's the same game, why are the levels different, why is the story different, why are there more weapons, more multiplayer options, why is there new media features, why is there up to four-player co-op, why is there the Forge?

Answer: Oh, because it's not the same game and you're full of it.

Like, wow, the sequel plays a lot like the games that came before it? Oh noes! What a ripoff!

With that logic, HL2 episodes 1 and 2 are ripoffs, as well.

[jesse_custer]

More weapons. Thanks for reminding me. That is so different and innovative.

Seriously, there hasn't been a Halo game as original as Prime or HL. That's been the point. Halo is predictable, like so many other FPS games.

Also, HL2 Episodes 1 and 2 don't masquerade as sequels. Then again, I wasn't talking about them in the first place.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

More weapons. Thanks for reminding me. That is so different and innovative.

Seriously, there hasn't been a Halo game as original as Prime or HL. That's been the point. Halo is predictable, like so many other FPS games.

Also, HL2 Episodes 1 and 2 don't masquerade as sequels. Then again, I wasn't talking about them in the first place.

Way to miss the point.

With ignorant statements like "it's the same game as before, what a ripoff!" you might as well write off almost every sequel out there.

Metroid Prime 2? It's just the same as the first one! What a ripoff!

And again, innovation is great, but the Halo series is FUN, and that's what counts in the end. Why should I care if it does anything revolutionary? What really matters is when I boot it up, I'm guarenteed to have a great quality shooter.

The graphics are good. The gameplay is good. The multiplayer is good. The options are good. The action is good.

But it doesn't have a gravity gun or puzzles, so suddenly it sucks?

Why does a game have to be revolutionary to get a good score? Why can't it just be a GOOD GAME?

[Jmacq1]

I fully agree that "Innovation/Originality" should not be a criteria that comprises part of a game's overall average score, or at the very least should not be weighted in the same manner as other areas. Not every game needs to push the envelope in that regard to be entertaining, and unless I missed the memo, entertainment is still what video games are all about. Is the game fun? Is it technically well-executed? That's a heck of a lot more important than "ZOMG I've never seen this before!!!" Let's not forget that not every innovation ends up being well-recieved or well-executed.

However I do believe that innovation and originality can be the little bit "extra" that pushes a game from good or even great to fantastic or superb. It can also make the games stick with the players long after they're finished. People will remember particularly fun frag-fests they've had with Halo 3, no doubt, but people will be more likely to remember the single-player campaign of Bioshock, and the eerieness of it's setting and design (and the spiffy "super powers" you can pick up).

Halo 3 and Bioshock are both essentially FPS games. Both are well-polished products with a fairly well-developed setting involved. I've enjoyed the heck out of both of them, but if I were going to give "Game of the Year" to either one, I'd certainly pick Bioshock over Halo 3. Because while both are excellent games, Bioshock has that little bit "extra" in terms of innovation and originality that Halo 3 lacks. I could give Halo a "9.5" and Bioshock a "10" in other words.

But then again, if it even half-way lives up to the hype, "Mass Effect" would probably steal my vote from either of them. ;)

[jesse_custer]

With ignorant statements like "it's the same game as before, what a ripoff!" you might as well write off almost every sequel out there.

Exactly. Metroid Prime 2 isn't as good Metroid Prime. People should stop sucking off every sequel that comes out.

[Black Atom]

Why does a game have to be revolutionary to get a good score? Why can't it just be a GOOD GAME?

The answer, of course, is that it can. If we were talking about a Zelda or a Final Fantasy, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[jesse_custer]

Actually, Final Fantasy has been going downhill for quite some time (although you could make a strong case for XII being more innovative). Zelda has done a little better in general. Innovation stopped with Ocarina of Time for a long time, but I think Twilight Princess made a nice save with its human/wolf transformations, sword techniques set, the spinner, the double hookshot, etc.

[Black Atom]

Actually, Final Fantasy has been going downhill for quite some time (although you could make a strong case for XII being more innovative). Zelda has done a little better in general. Innovation stopped with Ocarina of Time for a long time, but I think Twilight Princess made a nice save with its human/wolf transformations, sword techniques set, the spinner, the double hookshot, etc.

Those innovations are pretty cosmetic. Probably moreso than the addition of, say, the battle rifle to Halo 2, which significantly changed the whole approach to combat strategy in competition.

[jesse_custer]

What do you mean cosmetic? Whereas a rifle might change the combat aspect of a game, the additions in Zelda changed combat, puzzle-solving, traveling, and other aspects.

[Black Atom]

Yes, but the changes in Zelda are much less fundamental to the way the game is approached. Not that that's bad. I love the game quite a bit--more so than Halo, really.

[Jmacq1]

Exactly. Metroid Prime 2 isn't as good Metroid Prime. People should stop sucking off every sequel that comes out.

You must've missed the part where most people expect sequels to be at the very least strongly reminiscent of the game that preceded it.

Given that, y'know...the whole point of sequels is taking a recipe that "worked" and replicating it, then tweaking it a bit.

Trying to reinvent the wheel for every game that comes out isn't just impractical, it's also not likely to garner continued support from a lot of gamers...who usually buy sequels because they liked the first game, not because they're expecting something totally new and different.

"Originality" is clearly a strong benchmark for what you consider a good game. But it's not nearly so important to the majority of the gaming population (given how well strongly derivative sequels do).

[jesse_custer]

Whether or not the general gaming population believes something is irrelevant. I'm not making an argument about market demand. I'm talking about quality. Going softer on a game just because it's a sequel is weak critical thinking. There are good examples of sequels reinventing genres; therefore, that's the standard I hold for sequels.

[Jmacq1]

That's fine. But "quality" is entirely subjective. And while you may think innovation, originality, and "reinvention" are indicators of quality, there's quite a few people for whom they're not necessary for them to be entertained by a game.

And if the game entertains, then it's succeeded, at least for that person. Thus it's a "quality" game.

[jesse_custer]

I never said quality wasn't subjective, but at least I have an observable standard. "Fun" is so arbitrary that it's just about useless. I mean, two people can sit there and argue forever whether something is fun or not. Originality can be determined, however, by looking at what's been done before.

Also, I am not interested in people's personal experiences in this case. I am interested in whether the game really has quality.

[Jmacq1]

I never said quality wasn't subjective, but at least I have an observable standard. "Fun" is so arbitrary that it's just about useless. I mean, two people can sit there and argue forever whether something is fun or not. Originality can be determined, however, by looking at what's been done before.

Also, I am not interested in people's personal experiences in this case. I am interested in whether the game really has quality.

Quality as determined by your own criteria. How is that any less a "personal experience" than whether a person has fun with a game or not?

As I stated before (and you conveniently ignored), "originality" doesn't automatically make for "quality." Some games have tried to be "new" and "different" and "innovative" yet failed because people didn't enjoy playing them.

But as far as "observable" how about the fact that a game sells a few million copies and generally gets excellent consumer reviews across the web (and has a couple million people playing it online)? I'd say that's a pretty observable indication of "fun." I kinda doubt they'd be playing if they weren't enjoying it.

[jesse_custer]

Quality as determined by your own criteria. How is that any less a "personal experience" than whether a person has fun with a game or not?

As I stated before (and you conveniently ignored), "originality" doesn't automatically make for "quality." Some games have tried to be "new" and "different" and "innovative" yet failed because people didn't enjoy playing them.

But as far as "observable" how about the fact that a game sells a few million copies and generally gets excellent consumer reviews across the web (and has a couple million people playing it online)? I'd say that's a pretty observable indication of "fun." I kinda doubt they'd be playing if they weren't enjoying it.

First of all, you're not understanding the difference between saying a game is high quality because of your personal experience, and saying a game is high quality because of an objective standard like originality, graphics, etc. Keep in mind that the latter is subjectively selected as an indicator of quality, but it is more of a standard than "fun." In other words, we could have a dispute for days on whether or not something is "fun." However, something like "originality" can be pinpointed by simply observing what has and hasn't been done. Therefore, it is a measure that can make sense to anyone, not just those who have an emotional or personal reaction.

Second, while I agree that some "original" games are not of high quality, it's not because of lack of popularity. It would be due to other factors that the game is sorely lacking in, like graphics, soundtrack, and control. Again, popularity is not an indicator of quality. It's just an indicator of lots of people buying something. Popularity does not necessarily entail high quality, nor does it make a claim any truer. The subject at hand is the innate quality of a game, not the popularity of a game. See the fallacy "Appeal to Popularity" for more detail.

Third, you are right. Millions of people buying a game certainly indicates that people are having "fun." But sales do not indicate quality. There are plenty of items on the market that are of obvious poor quality, and they sell a lot. The sales don't negate the fact that the product sucks.

[Jmacq1]

I'm pretty sure everyone here understands the concept of "fun" actually. I'd wager it makes perfect sense to them.

I guess it's difficult for you to accept that the base reason for video games existing is to let people be entertained. All the supposedly-objective and observable criteria you're so fond of can certainly help in that regard, but if the basic goal is met or exceeded, then the game is quality.

You can have the prettiest, best sounding, most original game in the world, with the highest production values and yes, even selling a bazillion copies (based on pre-release hype). Yet if nobody enjoys playing it, it's not quality. It has failed in the basic goal of every video game.

Ergo, so much for "observable" criteria being the only definition of quality.

Obviously a game that has all these things -and- is fun to play embodies the highest tenets of quality, which is never something I have (or would) deny. But the basic point is that it's perfectly possible to have high-quality games that aren't particularly innovative or original.

[jesse_custer]

First, I didn't say anyone has trouble understanding what fun means. What I said was that "fun" is a personal reaction, and not everyone has the same personal reactions. Whereas something like originality has nothing to do with one person's experience.

Second, I didn't imply that a game wasn't supposed to entertain. A game of high quality should entertain. A game with good graphics, a kicking soundtrack, manageable controls, and some originality should be entertaining. On the other hand, maybe a few people still wouldn't find the game entertaining. That's why you can't measure a game's quality by someone's personal reaction. A game can have all the necessary requisites of being entertaining, and someone may still not like it. Therefore, there's a difference between game quality and whether someone has "fun" (whatever that means in each context).

Third, I've never heard of a case where no one enjoys playing a game with all the ingredients of greatness. I've heard of some people not enjoying it. But again, we're talking about popularity and personal reactions and not innate quality.

Fourth, I never said "observables" were the only definition of quality. I specifically said that observables are subjectively selected as indicators of quality. However, it's true that they are a better, more objective standard than the abstract idea of "fun."

Finally, I agree that there are some high quality games that aren't that original or groundbreaking. Most FPS games don't qualify, though.

[Black Atom]

First, I didn't say anyone has trouble understanding what fun means. What I said was that "fun" is a personal reaction, and not everyone has the same personal reactions. Whereas something like originality has nothing to do with one person's experience.

Second, I didn't imply that a game wasn't supposed to entertain. A game of high quality should entertain. A game with good graphics, a kicking soundtrack, manageable controls, and some originality should be entertaining. On the other hand, maybe a few people still wouldn't find the game entertaining. That's why you can't measure a game's quality by someone's personal reaction. A game can have all the necessary requisites of being entertaining, and someone may still not like it. Therefore, there's a difference between game quality and whether someone has "fun" (whatever that means in each context).

Third, I've never heard of a case where no one enjoys playing a game with all the ingredients of greatness. I've heard of some people not enjoying it. But again, we're talking about popularity and personal reactions and not innate quality.

Fourth, I never said "observables" were the only definition of quality. I specifically said that observables are subjectively selected as indicators of quality. However, it's true that they are a better, more objective standard than the abstract idea of "fun."

Finally, I agree that there are some high quality games that aren't that original or groundbreaking. Most FPS games don't qualify, though.

You seem obsessed with defining the quality of video games by a laundry list of questionable objective criteria and that's kinda where you're going wrong. For one, you're over-looking one of the most important aspects in a "quality" game: replayability. It's why games like Pac-Man, Tetris and, heck, electronic solitarie have such longevity and it's something a game like Halo has in spades over something like BioShock. You've made the mistake of modern developers by emphasizing technical achievement over replayability (often replaced with fake replayability by way of unlockables or achievements) which, if games like Pong and BreakOut are any indication, aren't necessarily indicative of overall quality at all.

[jesse_custer]

What do you mean by "questionable?" Aren't video games all made up of graphics, sound, control, and ideas? Why would evaluating quality by those standards be questionable? Just curious.

And I overlooked replayability, but I wasn't really trying to list everything, either. But you're right. However, keep in mind that replayability is often influenced by the aforementioned factors. For example, I can play the hell out of Chrono Trigger for a number of reasons. The awesome soundtrack is one.

Also, in the case of Pong and Breakout, their graphics and control schemes are perhaps primitive to our eyes, but think about when they first came out. Context is important, and those factors I mentioned played an important role in the games' overall quality and replayability.

[Black Atom]

What do you mean by "questionable?" Aren't video games all made up of graphics, sound, control, and ideas? Why would evaluating quality by those standards be questionable? Just curious.

I say questionable because while you can certainly evaluate each of those elements, none (excepting control, naturally) are indicators of a high quality--or entertaining--game. For that, you have to look at the mechanics. Video games have evolved quite a bit, but they are still games, like Poker, Chess or Yahtzee. Each of these has a unique mechanic--rules and parameters that determine how you interact with them--and video games are really no different. And when it comes to evaluating the quality of games, that's the heart of where you should be looking. Sound and graphics are really just cosmetics for the mechanic. Tetris is going to be addicting no matter how you dress it up.


And I overlooked replayability, but I wasn't really trying to list everything, either. But you're right. However, keep in mind that replayability is often influenced by the aforementioned factors. For example, I can play the hell out of Chrono Trigger for a number of reasons. The awesome soundtrack is one.

That's a good example. Personally, I never really got into Chrono Trigger, mostly because I have an issue with the mechanics of that particular type of game. No matter how great the music and art direction is, for the most part, no one's going to come along and make me love turn-based RPGs.


Also, in the case of Pong and Breakout, their graphics and control schemes are perhaps primitive to our eyes, but think about when they first came out. Context is important, and those factors I mentioned played an important role in the games' overall quality and replayability.

But people are rediscovering these games every generation. Well, maybe not Pong, so much. But it's the mechanic that endures.

[jesse_custer]

I say questionable because while you can certainly evaluate each of those elements, none (excepting control, naturally) are indicators of a high quality--or entertaining--game. For that, you have to look at the mechanics. Video games have evolved quite a bit, but they are still games, like Poker, Chess or Yahtzee. Each of these has a unique mechanic--rules and parameters that determine how you interact with them--and video games are really no different. And when it comes to evaluating the quality of games, that's the heart of where you should be looking. Sound and graphics are really just cosmetics for the mechanic. Tetris is going to be addicting no matter how you dress it up.

Well, this is where we have a fundamental disagreement rather than a "I'm right, and you're wrong" deal. While I agree with your historical reference of rules and parameters for all games, video games are a bit different. I emphasize the fact that "video" comes before "game." This is not to say that graphics are the most important part of a video game. But then again, it wouldn't be a video game without graphics. Hence, my stance on using graphics as an evaluation of quality. When you think about it, this doesn't even have to refer to how advanced the graphics are, how realistic they look, etc. It can refer to how well the graphics make sense in the context of how you control the game and how you play by the rules. Or it can refer to whether the graphics "fit" the thematic material at hand. Pong would definitely lose something without its simple paddles and ball. The mechanics of the control and rules just wouldn't work without the graphical design.


That's a good example. Personally, I never really got into Chrono Trigger, mostly because I have an issue with the mechanics of that particular type of game. No matter how great the music and art direction is, for the most part, no one's going to come along and make me love turn-based RPGs.

Naturally, people will favor certain genres over others. But from a strictly observational standpoint, it makes sense that some people would play a game just for the soundtrack, if we're assuming the genre matches with what they enjoy. I'm not a big fan of sports games in general, but I can see where the sweat on a basketball player and other smaller graphical details could provoke someone to continue to appreciate the game.


But people are rediscovering these games every generation. Well, maybe not Pong, so much. But it's the mechanic that endures.

But the mechanic endures because the visuals and sounds make sense in the context of the controls and rules.