Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
1st paragraph:
The platform is incredibly important due to the constraints it puts on a game. If you manage to get BF3 playing on a PSP screen the game will be terrible. If you manage to put FFVI on an FULL HD TV it will look terrible as well. It would be like watching a 3D film without the 3D glasses.
To the rating, however, it changes nothing. A PSP game you rated 9/10 should in theory provide as much fun as a PC game you rated 9/10.
2nd/3rd Paragraph:
But fun is the only thing that really matters really. How good a game is is directly related to how much fun people will have playing. if you spend your whole life making a gaming masterpiece but the players just have a nerve-wrecking experience then it'll have a poor rating. It's not like art where some dudes come up with ******** reasons so a painting with nothing but a line will sell for millions. It's simply a matter of giving the users the best experience. It's more like cooking really, what matters is how good it tastes. The chef can use the most awesome techniques ever, but if it tastes like **** then it's ****. If you don't like the word fun then use enjoyment instead. It doesn't change anything, the rating still reflects how good the overall experience was.
Graphics, music, story, etc. are the most important aspects of a game and the ones that directly connect to your senses, so it makes perfect sense to rate them separately. The overall rating, however, doesn't really need to be tied to those. Theoretically a game could get 1/10 in each of those fields but the overall experience be the best thing ever.
4th paragraph:
Really? I think the opposite. The god father, pulp fiction, star wars, lord of the rings, shawshank redemption, fight club, forest gump, etc. are definitely the most memorable films I've ever watched, and the most popular as well.
I find that people are more likely to rate something down because they wasted time watching it than to rate it up to try and justify watching it. You can see that in imdb not that many movies make it past 8.0, which would not happen if what you said was true and people tended to give higher ratings. The vast majority of the films stay around 7, a pleasant experience but not a memorable one.
The platform is incredibly important due to the constraints it puts on a game. If you manage to get BF3 playing on a PSP screen the game will be terrible. If you manage to put FFVI on an FULL HD TV it will look terrible as well. It would be like watching a 3D film without the 3D glasses.
To the rating, however, it changes nothing. A PSP game you rated 9/10 should in theory provide as much fun as a PC game you rated 9/10.
2nd/3rd Paragraph:
But fun is the only thing that really matters really. How good a game is is directly related to how much fun people will have playing. if you spend your whole life making a gaming masterpiece but the players just have a nerve-wrecking experience then it'll have a poor rating. It's not like art where some dudes come up with ******** reasons so a painting with nothing but a line will sell for millions. It's simply a matter of giving the users the best experience. It's more like cooking really, what matters is how good it tastes. The chef can use the most awesome techniques ever, but if it tastes like **** then it's ****. If you don't like the word fun then use enjoyment instead. It doesn't change anything, the rating still reflects how good the overall experience was.
Graphics, music, story, etc. are the most important aspects of a game and the ones that directly connect to your senses, so it makes perfect sense to rate them separately. The overall rating, however, doesn't really need to be tied to those. Theoretically a game could get 1/10 in each of those fields but the overall experience be the best thing ever.
4th paragraph:
Really? I think the opposite. The god father, pulp fiction, star wars, lord of the rings, shawshank redemption, fight club, forest gump, etc. are definitely the most memorable films I've ever watched, and the most popular as well.
I find that people are more likely to rate something down because they wasted time watching it than to rate it up to try and justify watching it. You can see that in imdb not that many movies make it past 8.0, which would not happen if what you said was true and people tended to give higher ratings. The vast majority of the films stay around 7, a pleasant experience but not a memorable one.
JMastiff
<Member>
<Member>
1st.
Wether I watch a movie on a 14 inch tv screen or in huge *** cinema I can pretty much say if it's good or bad. There are more conditions that apply but it doesn't hurt inherent value if the work has it. Same with games - it doesnt matter but the concept must be coherent and true.
2nd
Ok, ok. We're getting really baffled here. There were games that were good and not esentially fun. There are many examples where something not strictly enjoyable has enough value to enrich your time spent with it: sad movie, greek tragedy etc. Fun is not all that matters in a long run, there are many other elements that makes any form of human expression more or less true and valid to his condition; the richer it gets the better it is. How they're going to achieve it? It's their job.
At the moment there isn't much to offer in gaming industry but the structures were made and it's kinda hard to drop it.
Games are currently developed in a way that blocks it from developing their "possibility of means" because people fear they won't be "enjoyable".
I was going to write that you can't really compare it to cooking but actually you can. But lets say a good experience would be whole dinner with well selected appetizers, dessert and a good drink. Current game design formula is McDonaldish, you don't really match up something bitter and ease it later with something sweet so you get a richer taste experience, people are too afraid and doesn't have enough time to explore it well so they sell what they got and say it's good. It's not, it's cheap, it wastes your time and you probably would read whole Faulkner bibliography by the time you finished all episodes of Elder Scrolls.
I'm not saying reviewers and developers standards aren't understandable to me I only say they're wrong because they are constantly chosing easier and not appropriate ways of judging means provided by the medium.
3rd
Man, come on, Pat Garret and Billy Kid got 7.3 and Matrix 8.7. How can you trust any of these? Of course in main 250 tops are one of the most important movies in history but most of them are there because they are just popular. That's a ranking of popularity, why would you be interested in something everybody TOLD YOU (want to emphasize that because I've got a theory that contradicts it in a subtle way) was great. That's the first reason to think otherwise. No, I'm not a hipster, that's just common sense. If there was a ranking of movies that aren't that great but worth watching led by these people I might consider that.
Wether I watch a movie on a 14 inch tv screen or in huge *** cinema I can pretty much say if it's good or bad. There are more conditions that apply but it doesn't hurt inherent value if the work has it. Same with games - it doesnt matter but the concept must be coherent and true.
2nd
Ok, ok. We're getting really baffled here. There were games that were good and not esentially fun. There are many examples where something not strictly enjoyable has enough value to enrich your time spent with it: sad movie, greek tragedy etc. Fun is not all that matters in a long run, there are many other elements that makes any form of human expression more or less true and valid to his condition; the richer it gets the better it is. How they're going to achieve it? It's their job.
At the moment there isn't much to offer in gaming industry but the structures were made and it's kinda hard to drop it.
Games are currently developed in a way that blocks it from developing their "possibility of means" because people fear they won't be "enjoyable".
I was going to write that you can't really compare it to cooking but actually you can. But lets say a good experience would be whole dinner with well selected appetizers, dessert and a good drink. Current game design formula is McDonaldish, you don't really match up something bitter and ease it later with something sweet so you get a richer taste experience, people are too afraid and doesn't have enough time to explore it well so they sell what they got and say it's good. It's not, it's cheap, it wastes your time and you probably would read whole Faulkner bibliography by the time you finished all episodes of Elder Scrolls.
I'm not saying reviewers and developers standards aren't understandable to me I only say they're wrong because they are constantly chosing easier and not appropriate ways of judging means provided by the medium.
3rd
Man, come on, Pat Garret and Billy Kid got 7.3 and Matrix 8.7. How can you trust any of these? Of course in main 250 tops are one of the most important movies in history but most of them are there because they are just popular. That's a ranking of popularity, why would you be interested in something everybody TOLD YOU (want to emphasize that because I've got a theory that contradicts it in a subtle way) was great. That's the first reason to think otherwise. No, I'm not a hipster, that's just common sense. If there was a ranking of movies that aren't that great but worth watching led by these people I might consider that.
Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
1st.
It does because you will not be able to judge the movie/game properly. What if it had an amazing soundtrack and you had sound muted? What if the graphics and level of detail was amazing and you're not able to see it because you're playing it on a small screen? What if the game is made for PS3 but since you're playing on a small screen you can't tell that the graphics actually sucked and were extremely unattractive?
If you do not use the correct medium then you will be missing out on a part of the game/film which would make the rating untrue since you're leaving that out.
2nd/3rd.
Fun =/= Happy. Fun = Enjoyment. Well, maybe I've been using the incorrect word, but I've said that by fun I meant enjoyment before. I can watch a sad movie and say it was fun and that I enjoyed it. I can watch a happy movie and say the same. The richer a movie/game is the more enjoyment it'll provide.
I think it's very much like cooking. You can make a food with an incredible technique that only an expert would understand, but a 10 year old will love it as well even though he knows nothing about food.
The "mcdonaldish" games never get the highest ratings. It tastes good, but you simply know that there are better things out there. Like a movie filled with action. Sure, you like to see the guys fighting and you'll think it's awesome when you're watching, but when you leave the cinema you won't rate it above 8. Why? because it didn't move you. It didn't have enough depth to attach you to the film and make it memorable. The same thing happens with games.
For a game to reach 9.0 in a good rating website it'll have to be completely distinguishable form everything else. You can be sure that I'll never forget the Dark Brotherhood questline from ESIV Oblivion or the moment where Aeris gave her life to save the world in FFVII.
There's a huge difference between the levels of enjoyment I had from the "macdonald" 8/10 games and the 9.5/10 masterpieces, and the vast majority of the people who play them will know the difference. One is excellent to pass the time, the other leaves memories. Just like the other day I went to macdonalds with my friends, I remember I had fun but I can't really recall what actually happened and in one month I'll completely forget about it.
4th.
I never watched any of those so I can't comment on the films, but I do get what your saying. Unfortunately, I don't agree with it. Going back to the food analogy, I assume (since I've never seen it) that Pat Garret would be something with a brilliant taste to a trained taster. Like how a 1800 port would be superb to a wine taster but maybe you wouldn't be able to differentiate it from a wine that's 150 years younger or might not even like the taste. And that's really the big difference between those two movies. Would you rate a movie higher due to your understanding of it even knowing that the general population will not enjoy it as much? That movie basically has a niche demographic and does not fit the needs of the general population. Are you going to say that it makes the film better? Probably, but I'll say it makes it worse because the impact it creates on the population is much lower. A macdonalds film will have more impact than the 1800 port film, but the films that deserve the highest rating are still the one that fit the taste of both a common bloke and the wine taster. A great movie needs a certain depth, but the overall picture has to be just has good.
It does because you will not be able to judge the movie/game properly. What if it had an amazing soundtrack and you had sound muted? What if the graphics and level of detail was amazing and you're not able to see it because you're playing it on a small screen? What if the game is made for PS3 but since you're playing on a small screen you can't tell that the graphics actually sucked and were extremely unattractive?
If you do not use the correct medium then you will be missing out on a part of the game/film which would make the rating untrue since you're leaving that out.
2nd/3rd.
Fun =/= Happy. Fun = Enjoyment. Well, maybe I've been using the incorrect word, but I've said that by fun I meant enjoyment before. I can watch a sad movie and say it was fun and that I enjoyed it. I can watch a happy movie and say the same. The richer a movie/game is the more enjoyment it'll provide.
I think it's very much like cooking. You can make a food with an incredible technique that only an expert would understand, but a 10 year old will love it as well even though he knows nothing about food.
The "mcdonaldish" games never get the highest ratings. It tastes good, but you simply know that there are better things out there. Like a movie filled with action. Sure, you like to see the guys fighting and you'll think it's awesome when you're watching, but when you leave the cinema you won't rate it above 8. Why? because it didn't move you. It didn't have enough depth to attach you to the film and make it memorable. The same thing happens with games.
For a game to reach 9.0 in a good rating website it'll have to be completely distinguishable form everything else. You can be sure that I'll never forget the Dark Brotherhood questline from ESIV Oblivion or the moment where Aeris gave her life to save the world in FFVII.
There's a huge difference between the levels of enjoyment I had from the "macdonald" 8/10 games and the 9.5/10 masterpieces, and the vast majority of the people who play them will know the difference. One is excellent to pass the time, the other leaves memories. Just like the other day I went to macdonalds with my friends, I remember I had fun but I can't really recall what actually happened and in one month I'll completely forget about it.
4th.
I never watched any of those so I can't comment on the films, but I do get what your saying. Unfortunately, I don't agree with it. Going back to the food analogy, I assume (since I've never seen it) that Pat Garret would be something with a brilliant taste to a trained taster. Like how a 1800 port would be superb to a wine taster but maybe you wouldn't be able to differentiate it from a wine that's 150 years younger or might not even like the taste. And that's really the big difference between those two movies. Would you rate a movie higher due to your understanding of it even knowing that the general population will not enjoy it as much? That movie basically has a niche demographic and does not fit the needs of the general population. Are you going to say that it makes the film better? Probably, but I'll say it makes it worse because the impact it creates on the population is much lower. A macdonalds film will have more impact than the 1800 port film, but the films that deserve the highest rating are still the one that fit the taste of both a common bloke and the wine taster. A great movie needs a certain depth, but the overall picture has to be just has good.
JMastiff
<Member>
<Member>
Can't imagine how many analogies I'll have to build to get it crorrectly. You will judge the work well given it has depth where it should. I don't give a **** if I play Tekken 6 on 14 inch analog tv or 52 lcd flat screen in hd. The core gameplay stays the same. The WoW effect doesnt last long (great graphics detail etc.). If there is something that should be emphasized it will be or it will be only a subtle addition enrhiching the work but doesn't affect the core (I try make thing simple now to keep it short). Muted sound isn't relevant, it is too extreme.
2nd
There you go.
3rd
That's all fine. Thing is I don't agree with your evaluation. Like I said before, the current way of developing games is mcdonaldish, it doesn't provide level of the experience other, more mature media provide. I have games that are close to me "just because" but that doesn't affect my judgement upon them. The death of Aeris was something completely new for gaming. Although I have a lot of nostalgia towards FFVII it doesn't change that it was just a single example of subtle evolution. Imagine games were made way so you experience similar things all the time, like in a good book. I won't rabble about how it was only connected to story rather than gameplay.
4th
I don't want to divide it that extremely. As human beings we have access to similar potential, let's call it objective truth. I said earlier that I have small theory that contradict's a bit my previous statement. It's up to you wether you stop thinking (evaluating) about something around you and wether you consider it sufficient to your taste or needs. That's why it is not recomended to rely completely on other peoples choices. But it doesn't mean there is nothing more about it. I bet anyone would find the difference in those wines you mentioned if they spent enough time just tasting them. You may chose not to do this but you shouldn't get angry if someone said you drink cheap wines.
This comparison is not really good though. The art that comes from combining understandable means with depth is something very, very rare. This is what is called objective truth, where all people can agree it is valid or says something valid about our condition. The closer it gets to this the higher "grade" it should get. That doesn't happen because there are too many people that stopped where they wanted and think that there is nothing more. But even with this conclusion I can't really imagine anyone sayin Shakespeare is **** after reading his plays.
2nd
There you go.
3rd
That's all fine. Thing is I don't agree with your evaluation. Like I said before, the current way of developing games is mcdonaldish, it doesn't provide level of the experience other, more mature media provide. I have games that are close to me "just because" but that doesn't affect my judgement upon them. The death of Aeris was something completely new for gaming. Although I have a lot of nostalgia towards FFVII it doesn't change that it was just a single example of subtle evolution. Imagine games were made way so you experience similar things all the time, like in a good book. I won't rabble about how it was only connected to story rather than gameplay.
4th
I don't want to divide it that extremely. As human beings we have access to similar potential, let's call it objective truth. I said earlier that I have small theory that contradict's a bit my previous statement. It's up to you wether you stop thinking (evaluating) about something around you and wether you consider it sufficient to your taste or needs. That's why it is not recomended to rely completely on other peoples choices. But it doesn't mean there is nothing more about it. I bet anyone would find the difference in those wines you mentioned if they spent enough time just tasting them. You may chose not to do this but you shouldn't get angry if someone said you drink cheap wines.
This comparison is not really good though. The art that comes from combining understandable means with depth is something very, very rare. This is what is called objective truth, where all people can agree it is valid or says something valid about our condition. The closer it gets to this the higher "grade" it should get. That doesn't happen because there are too many people that stopped where they wanted and think that there is nothing more. But even with this conclusion I can't really imagine anyone sayin Shakespeare is **** after reading his plays.
Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
1st
So you're saying that taking away the visual "beauty" of a game is less important than it's sound counterpart? That's not fair at all, humans are highly dependent on their vision as it's our most developed sense. Epic graphics and scenery and at least as important as the soundtrack.
3rd
The story is the main component of a single player game, that's why the best games all have pretty good stories. And the current way of developing games is as macdonaldish as every other media. There are macdonaldish movie and macdonalsish books as well. And it's not infrequent at all for such movies and books to be high rated either. The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons are a perfect example of that. Just toss some conspiracy theories and obscure symbology and you got yourself a best seller! The depth of the book, however, is still nill. Give me an example of a high rated macdonaldish game and I'll give you a macdonaldish book in return.
And if you're comparing it to a book then it just proves your 1st paragraph wrong. Taking away the visual detail of a game would be the equivalent of taking away the adjectives in a book. Would the main story and plot twists of the book change? No, but it would all become a lot more bland and certainly hurt the book.
4th
I don't think it's only up to us to consider something sufficient, I'd say it's up to the book/movie/game/food. If it doesn't move you to an extend that you want to understand it's meaning then no one will bother to do it. If the wine didn't taste as good as it does do you think someone would dedicate their life to it? No. There would simply be no wine tasters in the world. If I don't like the overall experience I won't bother to re-watch it. It's wonderful when you watch something a second time and you understand things that you didn't before, but if the movie doesn't make me want to watch that second time then I'll never find them out. Is it my fault? I wouldn't say so. It's not about where we want to go, it's about where the movie/book/game takes us.
So you're saying that taking away the visual "beauty" of a game is less important than it's sound counterpart? That's not fair at all, humans are highly dependent on their vision as it's our most developed sense. Epic graphics and scenery and at least as important as the soundtrack.
3rd
The story is the main component of a single player game, that's why the best games all have pretty good stories. And the current way of developing games is as macdonaldish as every other media. There are macdonaldish movie and macdonalsish books as well. And it's not infrequent at all for such movies and books to be high rated either. The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons are a perfect example of that. Just toss some conspiracy theories and obscure symbology and you got yourself a best seller! The depth of the book, however, is still nill. Give me an example of a high rated macdonaldish game and I'll give you a macdonaldish book in return.
And if you're comparing it to a book then it just proves your 1st paragraph wrong. Taking away the visual detail of a game would be the equivalent of taking away the adjectives in a book. Would the main story and plot twists of the book change? No, but it would all become a lot more bland and certainly hurt the book.
4th
I don't think it's only up to us to consider something sufficient, I'd say it's up to the book/movie/game/food. If it doesn't move you to an extend that you want to understand it's meaning then no one will bother to do it. If the wine didn't taste as good as it does do you think someone would dedicate their life to it? No. There would simply be no wine tasters in the world. If I don't like the overall experience I won't bother to re-watch it. It's wonderful when you watch something a second time and you understand things that you didn't before, but if the movie doesn't make me want to watch that second time then I'll never find them out. Is it my fault? I wouldn't say so. It's not about where we want to go, it's about where the movie/book/game takes us.
JMastiff
<Member>
<Member>
1.
If it is relevant! Tekken 6 without some flashes (not all of them, some are needed to see if it was just-frame therfore it has gameplay consequentions) would still be tekken 6. It's the same game on psp and on ps3.
2.
No. Games doesn't need stories to be good. If the core gameplay is clear story is not necesssarry. It's authors choice - if he wants to include story and if he feels it is needed to convey his idea - fine. It is another measure to deliver an experience. If it is coherent without it why adding it?
3.
As I said above it's a matter of coherence and justification. If using certain mean is justified it is considered core part of the work. I'm not saying I'd erase all graphics, that's exaggeration. But if you remove one unnecessary sentence in the book you're writing you are certainly getting closer to better result.
4.
Just like I said, you may stop wherever you want it is quite healthy actually but there are traps waiting for those who expect just to be led through an experience without questioning it. I like to have high expectations but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy something simple. I agree with what you said, that doesn't really contradict my previous opinion but if I was an author of whatever I'd consider my recipient smart and critical I wouldn't want to lead him. I'd rather make him ask questions and find answers inside the work. That is CRUCIAL in games and not many people had the balls to actually do it.
If it is relevant! Tekken 6 without some flashes (not all of them, some are needed to see if it was just-frame therfore it has gameplay consequentions) would still be tekken 6. It's the same game on psp and on ps3.
2.
No. Games doesn't need stories to be good. If the core gameplay is clear story is not necesssarry. It's authors choice - if he wants to include story and if he feels it is needed to convey his idea - fine. It is another measure to deliver an experience. If it is coherent without it why adding it?
3.
As I said above it's a matter of coherence and justification. If using certain mean is justified it is considered core part of the work. I'm not saying I'd erase all graphics, that's exaggeration. But if you remove one unnecessary sentence in the book you're writing you are certainly getting closer to better result.
4.
Just like I said, you may stop wherever you want it is quite healthy actually but there are traps waiting for those who expect just to be led through an experience without questioning it. I like to have high expectations but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy something simple. I agree with what you said, that doesn't really contradict my previous opinion but if I was an author of whatever I'd consider my recipient smart and critical I wouldn't want to lead him. I'd rather make him ask questions and find answers inside the work. That is CRUCIAL in games and not many people had the balls to actually do it.
Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
1.
Obviously you can dismiss anything isn't relevant.. That's exactly the definition of the word. You can say it about anything, be it story, music or gameplay. If it's not relevant then it is irrelevant. And by definition if it is irrelevant then it has no impact on the rating.
2.
They don't need stories to be good, they need them to be great. Name a storyless singleplayer game that got a 9/10 rating. It's the story that makes a game memorable, just like a book or a movie. With no story the game is just a way to pass the time.
4.
I don't really have anything else to say about this.
Obviously you can dismiss anything isn't relevant.. That's exactly the definition of the word. You can say it about anything, be it story, music or gameplay. If it's not relevant then it is irrelevant. And by definition if it is irrelevant then it has no impact on the rating.
2.
They don't need stories to be good, they need them to be great. Name a storyless singleplayer game that got a 9/10 rating. It's the story that makes a game memorable, just like a book or a movie. With no story the game is just a way to pass the time.
4.
I don't really have anything else to say about this.
Canoas wrote:
2.
They don't need stories to be good, they need them to be great. Name a storyless singleplayer game that got a 9/10 rating. It's the story that makes a game memorable, just like a book or a movie. With no story the game is just a way to pass the time.
Halo. (For the weirdos that think it's for the single player campaign)
MrCuddowls wrote:
Hahahaha telling me my items are bad HHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAhA
Listen buddy don't judge someone's items if your only level 13
This build is Platinum approved, Thats all you need to know
Toshabi wrote:
Halo. (For the weirdos that think it's for the single player campaign)
Ermm, u know that the Halo story is kinda... AWESOME? Therea re books, comics and stuff and every true Halo fan like the story. Srsly...
I played Halo (the first) only for singleplayer. Multiplayer maybe 30 minutes or sth.
Thanks to MissMaw!
You need to log in before commenting.
I said about the technology used because I wanted to emphasize that we look at already developed medium (because you said that no technology was involved), that's why it seems "timeless". You seem to connect the game strictly with the platform that allows it to run and while this is valid point to make (that they are pretty much inseparable) that doesn't change the structure of the game itself and I deliberately separate them because it shouldn't affect me as a reciever. I think of as if it was the only game I played. That yeilds satisfying results.
You said
Thing is watching or looking at something is an experience as well. It's pretty obscure but many people wrote many books already about it and it is clear for most people that find themselves confident enought to judge them how to do it. We could apply similar criteria to games but unfortunately because there is so much misinformation involved and nothing really serious happens (in terms of evaluation, methodology and terminology) we are still in what I call "fun syndrome". Fun is really fuzzy word when used, children like it because it describes all the good feelings they have when they approach something that grabs their attention and that's about it. Nothing serious, nothing mature, not rich nor time worthy.
People who work on reviews (really, most of them, even those off) doesn't know how to describe true form of the game (given it has any, huehuehuehue, rare ocassion) and they follow a strange old-fashioned pros/cons graph,music,gampemplay,controls route which doesn't really tell you anything about it. It's cheap and I hate it from all my heart because noone really has done anything to pop-out from their ****hole to ask themselves a question if the way they do it is relevant.
I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories but as an average person who has spent some time watching movies I think most of the most popular are pure ****. Sometimes people give credit to something valuable but it seems they do it to justify wasting so much time watching ****. And I really don't care about "majority of population", I pick my authorities through study and still can disagree with them (Hai Duff, meloveu, huehue) but that creates a real point of reference not just blunt wall of average opinions.