Canoas wrote:
You proved how wrong you are yourself..
Who cares about true fans? Every true fan of Twilight will like the story, does that mean it's still good? No.
That's like saying every person who think blue is red thinks that blue is red. It's true, but red is still red. This is simple common sense.
Wait a second. It seems like you dont undestand it.
It's all about taste. Taste is unique (a little bit at least). If I like the story of whatsoever, it deasont mean it's awesome for you. But for me it IS an epic story. Puncto.
Stop arueing about it. It makes no sense. If yu dont agree with someones opinion on something (be it a game or whatever) dont, never ever in your whole life, say he's wrong. Because he isnt. He (dont) likes it. For you it's the opposite.
So if a Twilight fan likes the story it means he thinks the story is good. You dont like it, which obv. means the opposite. You cant simply say "this is bad, this is good, and yall gotta belief that." No. You cant.
Thanks to Keondre!
JMastiff
<Member>
<Member>
Canoas wrote:
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.
1. Relevant to the whole work, relevant to the idea you want to express. Maybe I've chosen a wrong word. If something included in the work is irrelevant to its structure it distracts the reciever and might bend the meaning therefore it has huge impact on how you rate or experience it.
2. I don't agree with those ratings. Maybe that's why it would be hard to do. Another thing is I don't think there is a game that reached that level sufficiently enough to show you clearly the idea. The bottom-line hovewer, build upon errors made by designers rather than good examples, is that the way you interact with the game and how you engage the problems that occur, doesn't have to be tied to a story. I'll say even more, there is no game that was able to merge them. The information you provide for player can be send by other means and it usually is. Mind I said 'it doesn't HAVE to be', merging the two is an option but it's up to the author if he decides to do so.
EDIT: Ah yes, almost forgot, not the best example for you and me but that should cover the idea.
http://www.metacritic.com/game/psp/tetris
Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
@Xiron
It's you who doesn't understand it. Taste is not unique. Most qualities of taste will be present in the large majority of the population. That's how you rate things. That's how The Godfather or Shawshank Redemption become accepted as some of the best movies ever made. It is not unique at all.
By your reasoning all movies/books/games/food/painting deserve a 10/10 rating. It makes no sense at all.
I can't say that a Twilight is bad because I don't like it, but I can say that Twilight is bad because it lacks any depth whatsoever and the majority of the population thinks it's ****.
Please, just leave the discussion for the grown ups will you?
@JMastiff
1. But graphics are relevant. The better the graphics are the better the game is. Play a game for PSP in a full HD TV and it'll be horrible. If you're doing the opposite though, and if it's a game like tekkan that needs simple distinguishable graphics then it won't change much, but it will still look better in a big TV.
2. Play LA Noire. You play the role of a detective, you need to figure things out on your own with the information you by playing the game. If you can't solve it then they'll still let you go forward by having your partner that solve it or have your theory proven wrong. It's pretty amazing really.
But I get what you're saying, even though I disagree. Most games don't really "want" you to be that interactive. There's a story that's been written for you and you don't really get much say in it, like when reading a book. Sure, maybe you don't want the main character doing that, but that's not up to you to decide. In an RPG game your job will be to save the world and you have no say in it, as it should be.
That example would be good, but I read the reviews. This score is no different from the 9/10 and 10/10 some people gave to Mario Land 2. The reviews most people gave do not match the score, for example, the guy who said this gave a 9/10:
"Worth a download for £4 / $10, Its a good version, maybe not quite as good as the DS version but still fun none the less, my only gripe is that the audio will drive you round the bend. "
So, if it's a 9/10 game why is he saying it's worth the 10$? And a 9/10 means one of the best games you've played so far, yet he describes the game as only good and fun. If good describes a 9/10 I wonder what the guy uses awesome and amazing for.
Take a look at the critic reviews as well.
Play UK - 9.3 - "A great range of genuinely entertaining play modes." Really? That's a comment for a 9.3/10 game?
VideoGamer - 9.0 - "At £3.99 this is one of the more expensive releases in the Minis range, but considering what you actually get, this still represents excellent value for money." They're clearly rating the game based on what it costs and not what it is.
You're linking me a site where people take a look at the price and then decide how good the game is based on it. That means if you doubled the price the ratings would drop noticeably. I think you will agree as well that cost does not influence a rating. A painting is not rated based on what it costs, it's the exact opposite.
It's you who doesn't understand it. Taste is not unique. Most qualities of taste will be present in the large majority of the population. That's how you rate things. That's how The Godfather or Shawshank Redemption become accepted as some of the best movies ever made. It is not unique at all.
By your reasoning all movies/books/games/food/painting deserve a 10/10 rating. It makes no sense at all.
I can't say that a Twilight is bad because I don't like it, but I can say that Twilight is bad because it lacks any depth whatsoever and the majority of the population thinks it's ****.
Please, just leave the discussion for the grown ups will you?
@JMastiff
1. But graphics are relevant. The better the graphics are the better the game is. Play a game for PSP in a full HD TV and it'll be horrible. If you're doing the opposite though, and if it's a game like tekkan that needs simple distinguishable graphics then it won't change much, but it will still look better in a big TV.
2. Play LA Noire. You play the role of a detective, you need to figure things out on your own with the information you by playing the game. If you can't solve it then they'll still let you go forward by having your partner that solve it or have your theory proven wrong. It's pretty amazing really.
But I get what you're saying, even though I disagree. Most games don't really "want" you to be that interactive. There's a story that's been written for you and you don't really get much say in it, like when reading a book. Sure, maybe you don't want the main character doing that, but that's not up to you to decide. In an RPG game your job will be to save the world and you have no say in it, as it should be.
That example would be good, but I read the reviews. This score is no different from the 9/10 and 10/10 some people gave to Mario Land 2. The reviews most people gave do not match the score, for example, the guy who said this gave a 9/10:
"Worth a download for £4 / $10, Its a good version, maybe not quite as good as the DS version but still fun none the less, my only gripe is that the audio will drive you round the bend. "
So, if it's a 9/10 game why is he saying it's worth the 10$? And a 9/10 means one of the best games you've played so far, yet he describes the game as only good and fun. If good describes a 9/10 I wonder what the guy uses awesome and amazing for.
Take a look at the critic reviews as well.
Play UK - 9.3 - "A great range of genuinely entertaining play modes." Really? That's a comment for a 9.3/10 game?
VideoGamer - 9.0 - "At £3.99 this is one of the more expensive releases in the Minis range, but considering what you actually get, this still represents excellent value for money." They're clearly rating the game based on what it costs and not what it is.
You're linking me a site where people take a look at the price and then decide how good the game is based on it. That means if you doubled the price the ratings would drop noticeably. I think you will agree as well that cost does not influence a rating. A painting is not rated based on what it costs, it's the exact opposite.
Canoas wrote:
@Xiron
It's you who doesn't understand it. Taste is not unique. Most qualities of taste will be present in the large majority of the population. That's how you rate things. That's how The Godfather or Shawshank Redemption become accepted as some of the best movies ever made. It is not unique at all.
By your reasoning all movies/books/games/food/painting deserve a 10/10 rating. It makes no sense at all.
I can't say that a Twilight is bad because I don't like it, but I can say that Twilight is bad because it lacks any depth whatsoever and the majority of the population thinks it's ****.
Rly? I said that? A 10/10 rating?
You get me wrong. I say everyone has his own opinion. I dont like The Godfather. Best example, glad u brought that up. It may be "one of the best movies ever" but I dont like it.
So if someone says "The Godfather is good - best movie ever" this means HE THINKS it is. I THINK it is not since I dont like the movie. Get it now?...
Thanks to jhoijhoi!
JMastiff
<Member>
<Member>
1. Still no. Better doesn't mean more complex. Here you go with example from history of art again, just because baroque artist had more complex paintings and had more technique it doesn't mean they were better. It had different idea, rules and message.
2. Like I said. It's a matter of choice. Makers of LA noire decided to go that way and that's fine. I just said game substance doesn't need story to convey an idea and in most of the games it is an artificial way to create simple motivation.
It was to show you the idea a game without a story can be entertaining and can convey certain emotions and set thinking patterns, you said it had to have 9/10. Metacritic is one of the most important tools in game industry. I said I didn't agree with those ratings, it was your request. But as always there is some good stuff there.
2. Like I said. It's a matter of choice. Makers of LA noire decided to go that way and that's fine. I just said game substance doesn't need story to convey an idea and in most of the games it is an artificial way to create simple motivation.
It was to show you the idea a game without a story can be entertaining and can convey certain emotions and set thinking patterns, you said it had to have 9/10. Metacritic is one of the most important tools in game industry. I said I didn't agree with those ratings, it was your request. But as always there is some good stuff there.
Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
@Xiron
No. It's not "He thinks the Godfather is one of the best movies", it's "the Godfather is widely accepted as one of the best movies ever". Whether you like it or not is completely irrelevant.
@JMastiff
1. That's obvious. If you make a complex piece of **** it'll still be a piece of ****, no matter how complex it is. However, this is not the case, and I never used the word complex. Graphics will simply look better when played in the medium they're designed for.
2. But without story what's the point? Story will still be the most important factor in a single player game.
3. If you read the reviews instead of the rating you'll notice that the users do not believe the game deserves a 9/10 or above. The only reason they voted 9/10 and 10/10 was due to the price. If you're rating the price of the game for the content it provides then I'll accept the rating, but that's not what we're discussing here.
Also, I already knew that a game without a story can be entertaining, that's obvious. And tetris doesn't convey emotions and set thinking patterns.. Still, my point was that the best single player games will have a story.
No. It's not "He thinks the Godfather is one of the best movies", it's "the Godfather is widely accepted as one of the best movies ever". Whether you like it or not is completely irrelevant.
@JMastiff
1. That's obvious. If you make a complex piece of **** it'll still be a piece of ****, no matter how complex it is. However, this is not the case, and I never used the word complex. Graphics will simply look better when played in the medium they're designed for.
2. But without story what's the point? Story will still be the most important factor in a single player game.
3. If you read the reviews instead of the rating you'll notice that the users do not believe the game deserves a 9/10 or above. The only reason they voted 9/10 and 10/10 was due to the price. If you're rating the price of the game for the content it provides then I'll accept the rating, but that's not what we're discussing here.
Also, I already knew that a game without a story can be entertaining, that's obvious. And tetris doesn't convey emotions and set thinking patterns.. Still, my point was that the best single player games will have a story.
JMastiff
<Member>
<Member>
1. Given the game is good that won't matter that much, the vision is just a part of it. I doubt anyone really bothers with that since there is too much difference in what tech people have.
2. You're just used to that system. I don't usually play games for story because in most cases it is bad. As I said, it's too obvious that they create a story just to push you forward and scream out their unfulfilled writing ambitions. I'd rather spend 10 hours reading a good book than 40 playing some big-*** story-driven rpg. Why? Because it's more cohesive, and, oh wait again, I can read about 2 to 3 books in that time or watch 20 movies. Problem solving and game-system is more important aspect to explore in my opinion. But there seeem to be some movement in non-gameplay based, story-driven interactive media though, that's also something to look at. http://dear-esther.com/
Tetris
Of course it is not obvious, because it wasn't explored well enough before it was finished to do it right.
And my point is that those games are still not very good.
2. You're just used to that system. I don't usually play games for story because in most cases it is bad. As I said, it's too obvious that they create a story just to push you forward and scream out their unfulfilled writing ambitions. I'd rather spend 10 hours reading a good book than 40 playing some big-*** story-driven rpg. Why? Because it's more cohesive, and, oh wait again, I can read about 2 to 3 books in that time or watch 20 movies. Problem solving and game-system is more important aspect to explore in my opinion. But there seeem to be some movement in non-gameplay based, story-driven interactive media though, that's also something to look at. http://dear-esther.com/
Tetris
Quoted:
Also, I already knew that a game without a story can be entertaining, that's obvious. And tetris doesn't convey emotions and set thinking patterns..
Of course it is not obvious, because it wasn't explored well enough before it was finished to do it right.
Quoted:
Still, my point was that the best single player games will have a story.
And my point is that those games are still not very good.
Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
JMastiff
<Member>
<Member>
I think they have enormous potential but I feel it is wasted most of the time. I like Braid very much ( http://braid-game.com/ ) and generally agree with design decisions made there. In fact it was the game that changed my view because I used to think it is impossible to create a valuable work in so strictly entertainment-oriented environment.
You need to log in before commenting.
Who cares about true fans? Every true fan of Twilight will like the story, does that mean it's still good? No.
That's like saying every person who think blue is red thinks that blue is red. It's true, but red is still red. This is simple common sense.