Register
Events
Popular
More
Post #1
I've been noticing a trend with this generation of games. When a new trailer shows up, or a new release hits the shelves, many games are bombarded with overcritical nitpicking, hyperbole, and ultra high standards by many people in the videogame community. Games like Skyrim will come out, and hundreds of people will fill the comments section with comments like "Wow, look at how shitty the graphics are." It caught flak for having a UI that was "completely unusable". A more recent example was the Far Cry 3 gameplay trailer released a few days ago. Instantly the thread (and youtube comments) were filled with criticisms that "It looks like call of duty" when the only similarity is that both games let you shoot people. Again people say it's got "awful cartoony graphics" and I even saw a comment that "the characters are TOO weird!" (Here is the thread in question) What's happened to us? Even in the Xbox/PS2 generation we weren't so incredibly critical. Have we become spoiled? It seems like everyone is holding new games to the graphical standards of Crysis, the audio quality of Battlefield, and innovative uniqueness of Portal. Are some bad alpha maps on trees or a reload animation that looks similar to another game really going to prevent you from having fun in a game? Or is criticism like this completely reasonable, and genuinely helps weed out the good games from the bad? (And sorry about the shit formatting, facepunch is being a bitch and keeps fucking it all up.)
-
-
Yep, and it hurts Indies the most.
-
Other examples that I've read include Battlefield Bad Company 2 for "awful weapon textures", Battlefield 3 "looks like shit", Saints Row 2 PC being "Completely unplayable" (Sure it's laggy, but it's by no means unplayable), the TF2 hat fiasco (I myself agree that TF2's artstyle isn't as cohesive anymore, but that never prevented me from playing what is a genuinely fun game)
Edited:
You've also got extremists, such as the call of duty players who won't play any other games because "they're not call of duty"
-
Saying bf3 looks like shit, is them probably trying to start a argument
-
I think the problem is that for like every 1 person which complains there's 10 people which will enjoy the game with no problems, but those 10 don't really have a voice on forums or online so you don't see their opinion (or they don't feel the need to complain all the time).
-
Hearing people disrespect old or underdog titles for having bad graphics and praise generic brown and grey shooters for having incredible graphics makes me want to two foot them in the face so I'm inclined to say yes.
-
Yes, because the gaming community is much bigger than it used to be and is filled with mostly teenagers who whine about everything.
-
I would agree on the basis that many gamers prefer dull shooters that have super hi-res 1080P graphics, but the depth and intrigue of a piece of cardboard. I don't think bitching about pissy engines, bad DRM or derpy design choices counts though. From what I've seen, while they may be exaggerating, they do have a point. BF3 isn't 'beautiful'. It's an exercise in technical prowess, but it just doesn't look right. The lighting is a big part of that, and the videos I've seen show an abundant amount of dust kicked up by explosions.
But I haven't played it so you may be able to turn some of that shit off.It actually genuinely was unplayable for me. The xBox controller wouldn't map right and somehow ended up with reverse bound to turn left despite that not being shown in the keybindings, it looked like a PS1 game, and it lagged harder than GTA IV ever could.
-
To be honest.
The Far Cry 3 cinematic trailer portrayed the character as a pretty regular guy who snapped in order to survive and he barely does so in the trailer.
However, in the gameplay footage I've seen, the player runs around(akin to CoD) and guns down everything and everyone with no effort. That's not a game that I'd want to play. (He literally had 5+ guys shooting at him at the same time a few times and just kept running around like some kind of bullet proof Terminator).
-
A LOT of efforts was put into Battlefield 3, and when you say it looks a little bit shit, it's only because for DICE the BF3 was probably too big of a bite which they couldn't handle.
Not a game developer myself, but from what I understand is that creating games is very complicated and.. time consuming.
-
most people(not all) want an easy game they can jump into play a little bit and jump out, not a game that they have to sink hours and hours into for the story and get nothing out of it. people now-a-days want progression, or rewards for doing things that youre expected to do. people also want the latest and greatest graphics, which honestly youre just not going to get on consoles(which is where the main focus is now, i believe) games like call of duty are popular because you can jump into multiplayer, spend 15 minutes shooting people, get an unlock or something and then go to work or school or something, whereas games like skyrim you jump in for 15 minutes and you get maybe(big maybe) 1 quest done and all you get is some gold and hopefully(though unlikely) a cool item
im not saying skyrim is crap or CoD is amazing, but CoD is what people want in this generation of games. they want games that look good and they can jump into, play for a few minutes and get progress or unlock something cool
just my thoughts, but maybe i misunderstood this thread? probably
-
There are 3 things I find wrong with this. First, how would you portray a game where your character has no combat experience, when that game's core gameplay is about combat? Make him unable to handle guns correctly? Make him die in three shots? Second, if you harken back to the old trailers for the Far Cry games, they featured the characters doing exactly the same thing, running and gunning with explosions everywhere, because it's a trailer. It's supposed to be exciting and show off all the fancy graphics and action. It's not supposed to show the character searching for healthpacks after he gets riddled with bullets. Third, since it's an open world game, the trailer really doesn't represent what the gameplay is going to be like for you, as open world games give you as many options as you want. If you don't want to run and gun you don't have to. You could take a stealthy approach.
Also, how is something as general as running and gunning "akin" to CoD? CoD doesn't even have you run and gun in singleplayer. It forces you to stay behind cover 70% of the time.
-
I think the criticism is reasonable. It encourages developers to create video games even better than before.
But there is a difference between legitimate and uniformed criticism, which I'm sure developers and producers know how to differentiate from.
There are different kinds of gamers to appeal to as well.
Many developers do want to appeal to the call of duty-esque gamers, because they have a broad audience and bring in good sells.
Other developers, usually indie, tend to try appeal to a specific audience.
Each knows who to take their criticism from.
An artistic indie developer knows not to take too much advice from a CoD audience, while at the same time, a large game developer would find the advice valuable.
