|
Post by Baron Canier on Jul 10, 2010 17:10:48 GMT
I refuse to play anything made by rockstar because I find the GTA series shallow & pretentious. Fair enough. What pretensions do you think it harbours? Also, does this mean you even forgo Lemmings?
|
|
|
Post by Pombar on Jul 11, 2010 13:34:49 GMT
I think GTA's at its best when it's being satirical (ie, most of the time). A lot of the people I've talked to who dismiss it as shallow, chavvy or just overly macho or whatnot are only really talking about the impression they have of the game, not the game itself - which pokes fun at all those things constantly.
|
|
|
Post by Beeth on Jul 11, 2010 14:19:10 GMT
I admit I had long been reluctant of the GTA series, having never actually seen it in action (at least, not from a fair and/or neutral POV). Whenever I asked people about it they generally didn't mention anything outside of the things I already knew, i.e. you steal cars, gun people, run from the police, the usual balls. A short while back I bought GTA IV having read desirable things about the game and ignoring the usual news and mainstream backlash for once, and was pleasantly surprised as to its overall content and far-reaching sandbox abilities.
Ironically, it was reading an utterly biased and ill-informed article in one of the magazines we got in up the shop last year that finally convinced me to buy it, partly because of the many positive things I'd read about the game, and partly out of spite for the hopeless rag I had just read. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Nam on Jul 11, 2010 19:19:30 GMT
I once had a conversation not too long ago describing Shadow of the Collossus to someone whod never heard of it. He said it sounded like a great idea, and that he'd love to try it, and asked me what console it was out on. When I said PS2 he said "Oh [censored] that then, I don't want to play a game that's old".
|
|
|
Post by madhair60 on Jul 11, 2010 20:16:07 GMT
I have friends like that; they've upgraded to PS3 or 360 and simply can't be having the hassle of setting up their old PS2, which is likely in storage. In many ways I can sympathise with the position. Most people aren't interested in "retro" at all, finding the aesthetics rather displeasing. I see that as more of a matter of preference and convenience than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by Pombar on Jul 11, 2010 22:01:34 GMT
Shadow of the Colossus is a muddy, ugly game and always kind of was. And yet, still somehow visually stunning. But between its awkward-at-first controls (not unlike GTAIV!), the you-have-to-like-it hype it gets, and the general lack of the thrill-of-the-new, not many people get a very good first impression of it these days.
|
|
|
Post by Ellie on Jul 12, 2010 9:44:09 GMT
I would never dismiss a game because its retro, but I find a lot of retro games you had to have played at the time to appreciate them, its mainly the memories that make us smile at our old loved games. But there are certainly games I never played that I would have liked to, I never got around to buying Shaodw of the collossus myself, but I played it at work when it was released, and would like to try it properly. I heard they're re-releasing it with Ico on the ps3...Not sure how true that is, must look into it.
|
|
|
Post by projectzuel on Jul 16, 2010 14:06:58 GMT
I think we are all coloured by opinion even before we open the box. That's the nature of the industry really. Still there are several things that I think don't always make valid reasons for dismissal:
a) It's a sequel or part of a franchise therefore it will be repetitive and boring.
In some instances this is quite applicable but the games industry's level of interactive offering open up room for creativity and innovation even within the confines of a franchise.
b) On [insert console here] ergo it will suck.
I think we are all guilty of this in the old days, when we were younger and more swayed by hardware based loyality. I think today though each console has a fantastic range of games that doesn't warrent this kind of ignorance.
c) It's a modern game and thus can't be as good as my old classic game version.
In Sonic's case this might ring true XD. I like to feel that, actually I don't just play more games because I have the more money then when I was a kid but because there are a lot more quality games to play!!
Probs more I could mention but can't be assed.
|
|
|
Post by ShayMay on Jul 16, 2010 14:13:39 GMT
Is it acceptable for me to dismiss FPSs on the basis that they're FPSs, a genre I'm not too fond of as a rule of thumb? I've come across some really good ones, but mainly I just overlook 'em and go do something else. Does... does that make me a bad person?
|
|
|
Post by Baron Canier on Jul 16, 2010 14:36:39 GMT
Eh, not really. While I can have fun with FPS games, a good majority are pretty uninspiring these days, and even then the ones that play well (Halo, Gears) suffer other pitfalls.
|
|
|
Post by Ellie on Jul 16, 2010 18:00:13 GMT
I can't play FPS games, oddly enough they give me motion sickness. I can't even watch somebody playing them longer than ten minutes, its a shame cause there are some that sound so awesome.
|
|
|
Post by Beeth on Jul 16, 2010 18:29:56 GMT
I often find myself orbiting around particular genres. I'm a particular sucker for motor-racing (real or fictitious) and fighting games, as well as 2D platformers.
I quite like puzzle games, usually focusing on originality, but I'll depend more on cosmetics if it's already "been done", as it were. A mixture of the two will often win me over. I cite Lumines and Kula World as prime examples of this.
FPS's, well, I am partial to them even though I don't really have all that many. I have all Dooms, The first two Quakes, The Orange Box as well as a few other less known ones. I'm largely indifferent to most major series, strangely enough. I've never played Call Of Duty (though we have it), Gears Of War, only barely played Halo (I own the first one) as well as other possible glaring omissions.
One area I tend to avoid, largely because they're incredibly daunting to me more than anything, is RPGs. I've played a few, but I often just don't have the time of day for them. I've only seen four through to the end: Sonic Chronicles (as an obligation, I could say) and Phantasy Star Universe (On which I would routinely spend a solid day completing single missions), Pokemon Red and Pokemon Silver (originals). I've started several others, never got very far in any case. The most prominent RPG out there, Final Fantasy, is a series I've never so much as glimpsed, nor have any intention of doing so because I just don't feel I could dedicate myself to it. Oddly, I have seen both of the films. I enjoyed FF7:AC. Spirits Within was generic cowpat, though.
Additional: And it goes without saying I would never touch an MMORPG if my life depended on it.
|
|
|
Post by Pombar on Jul 16, 2010 19:08:44 GMT
I orbited around particular genres, and then found myself falling out of love with videogames. I guess this is the point at which most people claim to 'grow out' of the hobby. Instead I just gave myself a kick up the arse, and dropped my (largely pretentious and only occasionally tested) prejudices against genres I apparently 'just didn't like' - shooters, fighters, shmups, first person RPGs, etc - and gave them a genuinely fair shot. Now, this didn't work for racing games. I still don't like them. But for the vast majority of genres, it turns out I can actually fully enjoy them, and this revived my interest in the hobby at a time when I felt like I'd seen it all in the genres I had stuck to previously.
Also, Gears isn't a FPS, Cain. A derp derp.
|
|
|
Post by madhair60 on Jul 16, 2010 19:41:23 GMT
I always make that mistake, too.
|
|
|
Post by Baron Canier on Jul 16, 2010 19:43:55 GMT
Also, Gears isn't a FPS, Cain. Aaargh, [censored].
|
|
|
Post by Pombar on Jul 16, 2010 20:52:08 GMT
Gears is called an FPS because people want to lump it into the category they can easily dismiss as 'not their kind of thing' without shafting Resident Evil 4 (which is basically a Gears of War prototype, since the two play so similarly).
|
|
|
Post by madhair60 on Jul 16, 2010 23:49:41 GMT
Resi 4 doesn't play much like Gears in any but the most basic way, mind.
|
|
|
Post by Pombar on Jul 17, 2010 0:03:39 GMT
I dunno. Besides the very similar over the shoulder style of 3rd Person Shooter (Gears was the first real imitator of Resi 4 in this way), the two games are paced pretty similarly around set pieces and adjoining corridors. Where Resi 4 had escort missions, Gears has its vehicle moment and the 'avoid the darkness' night level. Gears does thankfully drop the Quick Time Events, of course, and arguably supplies you with better equipped enemies and more manoeuvrability to counter that.
|
|
|
Post by Baron Canier on Jul 17, 2010 0:30:10 GMT
Gears is called an FPS because people want to lump it into the category they can easily dismiss as 'not their kind of thing' without shafting Resident Evil 4 (which is basically a Gears of War prototype, since the two play so similarly). Actually, it was just a brainfart on my part; I've played both GOW games, but for some reason it was one of the first things to come to mind when I thought "FPS".
|
|
|
Post by Pombar on Jul 17, 2010 0:49:48 GMT
By that I didn't mean that people literally thought it was an FPS - it's just that the term "FPS" occupies the "ugh over-macho 'gritty' chav fodder" area in so many peoples' minds that they lump Gears in there too. Because if they just said Shooter, that'd include Resi 4. And god forbid they ever admit that there're exceptions to their over-generalisations or judging an entire genre by a couple of bad experiences! ...I used to do this pretty bad when I loved Timesplitters but ignored every other shooter.
|
|
|
Post by Erinaceus Europaeus on Aug 7, 2010 17:50:42 GMT
Most "stupid" reasons ?
Let me see....
(1) It's turn-based (fairly common criticism)
(2) It is a galge (this is a fairly long story that I won't go into. Suffice to say is that a niche genre that is fairly dubious does have a few great games... that are usually ignored because of the dubiousness of said genre.)
(3) It's old and the graphics suck (for shame. They no longer make games like Arcanum and Deus Ex)
and now for a really old criticism
(4) A 'building' game ? Where's the action ? (I have to admit: I'm a fan of pretty much every Will Wright "Sim" game. )
|
|
|
Post by Ellie on Aug 8, 2010 12:39:00 GMT
It's a retro game and I don't like retro, even though I've never played them.
|
|
|
Post by segaz on Aug 26, 2010 2:01:34 GMT
"What? You have to download it?"
Worse is people who dismiss games from the demo (or even the full game), simply because there is an unskippable movie at the start, or you might have to talk to maybe....two people? before the action starts.
And the absoloute worse (two 'worses', how can this be?) is people who dismiss it from the name. Try a game called ICO? No thanks. Elektroplankton? WTF, sounds gay. Billy Hatcher and the Giant Egg? Sounds like the worst game ever.
|
|
|
Post by Lost Mercenary on Aug 26, 2010 11:31:53 GMT
"It's not a game. It's a movie!"
The most common argument against the MGS series that I hear from people. Especially MGS4.
|
|
|
Post by Sin on Aug 26, 2010 16:45:55 GMT
That seems like a fair reason to me. Not commenting on the quality of the game itself, but when you have a product that about 40% of the playtime is going to be spent watching automated cut scenes rather then assuming direct control over the main character then that can be legitimately very unappealing to people.
|
|