Updated January 2, 2024. Because over 6+ years, some new things have
surfaced, while others have remained unchanged but in need of an update.
Some
people play shitty games for laughs; others play them to review them or
to see what makes the games so awful. Or, maybe a particular game has
enough charm that it becomes a guilty pleasure.
Then there are people who defend awful games with the same excuses over and over again. Maybe you've heard some of these excuses recently or in the past, too! Have a look.
The game got 10/10 from a big name reviewer/site! That means it's good, and anyone who dislikes it is an idiot!
No. Stop. Just because some famous reviewer gave 10/10 to a game doesn't mean absolutely everyone has to like it. Maybe the people who didn't like it were put off by certain mechanics, or didn't enjoy that specific type of game. Or, maybe the game is a glitchy, barely finished mess of microtransactions, and the reviewer only heaped praise on it because they had to in order to keep their job.
What? Did you think that wouldn't happen? Reviews can and have involved money. Development companies will pay for ad space on review sites to hype up their games. They might even provide perks, like merchandise, press copies, fancy hotel stays, or invites to special events. If they gave all that to a reviewer/review site and ended up with a "not great" review, they'd most likely pull the ad money, and refuse to give out those fancy perks again.
The game got 10/10 from a big name reviewer/site! That means it's good, and anyone who dislikes it is an idiot!
No. Stop. Just because some famous reviewer gave 10/10 to a game doesn't mean absolutely everyone has to like it. Maybe the people who didn't like it were put off by certain mechanics, or didn't enjoy that specific type of game. Or, maybe the game is a glitchy, barely finished mess of microtransactions, and the reviewer only heaped praise on it because they had to in order to keep their job.
What? Did you think that wouldn't happen? Reviews can and have involved money. Development companies will pay for ad space on review sites to hype up their games. They might even provide perks, like merchandise, press copies, fancy hotel stays, or invites to special events. If they gave all that to a reviewer/review site and ended up with a "not great" review, they'd most likely pull the ad money, and refuse to give out those fancy perks again.
And yes, this has happened. Some companies decided James Stephanie Sterling wasn't a "safe" reviewer, and no longer send her press/review copies of their games. Jeff Gerstmann was fired from GameSpot after giving Kane & Lynch a negative review. But, apparently, they didn't fire him for that, even as a certain company was threatening to pull its ad money.
You
know, it was all probably coincidence, anyway. Now, let's go buy the
next glitchy, half-finished pile of microtransactions that gets 10/10
after a three day review embargo.
It gets better later on, once you're several hours in.
Oh, of course! Why have the game be good at the start? Going
through hours of mind-numbing bullshit to get to the "fun" parts is
obviously the best way to make a game. It's not like you're trying to
convince yourself that $60 was well spent, because you eventually got some fun out of the game, right?
Years ago, when Final Fantasy XIII released, I got it as a free rental and I hated it. That was one of few games I'd stopped playing due to sheer annoyance. When I voiced my displeasure about FFXIII, I was told "it gets better later" and that I just needed to "give it a chance." I was assured that once I hit the thirty hour mark, the game would be so much more fun.
Yes, thirty hours. I was annoyed and bored after two! Why go through boredom or glitchy shit to get to the "good" parts, when you can play other games that are fun right off the bat? I don't know; I guess I'm not a "real gamer."
Well, the game has technobabble jargon graphics features! 200 FPS! Realistic models! That makes it amazing by default!
People have been using the "good graphics = good game" defense since the mid 80's. We're in 2024 now, and people still try to defend absolute shit games with "THE GRAFFIX!" The game can run like shit, play like shit, and sound like shit. But, if the graphics are fancy, realistic, hi-def beauty, then the game gets a pass.
I don't get it. I never have, and I never will. And I don't think these people get that with fancier graphics come fancier price tags and system requirements.
Years ago, when Final Fantasy XIII released, I got it as a free rental and I hated it. That was one of few games I'd stopped playing due to sheer annoyance. When I voiced my displeasure about FFXIII, I was told "it gets better later" and that I just needed to "give it a chance." I was assured that once I hit the thirty hour mark, the game would be so much more fun.
Yes, thirty hours. I was annoyed and bored after two! Why go through boredom or glitchy shit to get to the "good" parts, when you can play other games that are fun right off the bat? I don't know; I guess I'm not a "real gamer."
Well, the game has technobabble jargon graphics features! 200 FPS! Realistic models! That makes it amazing by default!
People have been using the "good graphics = good game" defense since the mid 80's. We're in 2024 now, and people still try to defend absolute shit games with "THE GRAFFIX!" The game can run like shit, play like shit, and sound like shit. But, if the graphics are fancy, realistic, hi-def beauty, then the game gets a pass.
I don't get it. I never have, and I never will. And I don't think these people get that with fancier graphics come fancier price tags and system requirements.
Sure, the base game sucks. But, you can add mods/buy things to make it better!
I have two questions for you: will changing the color, shape, or
consistency of a turd make it taste like a four star entree? Will buying
whipped cream, sprinkles, and cherries from the person who made the
turd make it taste like a gourmet dessert?
No, it won't, because the turd is still a turd. Installing mods
should be optional and done to enhance a game, not fix it. If I have to
install mods just so I can start playing the base game or get even
slight enjoyment out of it, the developers have done something very
wrong.
Purchasing DLC should give you an expanded game, not a bunch of nickel-and-dime bullshit. I keep seeing the same thing: individual maps ($2 - $4 each), characters ($3 - $5 each), reskins ($2 each), and quests/missions ($2 - $4 each). Getting all this DLC costs more than the base game, and adds little to nothing of value. Sometimes, it might even add more bugs and stupidity.
Gee, what an improvement! Sure showed me.
Purchasing DLC should give you an expanded game, not a bunch of nickel-and-dime bullshit. I keep seeing the same thing: individual maps ($2 - $4 each), characters ($3 - $5 each), reskins ($2 each), and quests/missions ($2 - $4 each). Getting all this DLC costs more than the base game, and adds little to nothing of value. Sometimes, it might even add more bugs and stupidity.
Gee, what an improvement! Sure showed me.
Yeah,
the game's too grindy and takes forever. But, you can still get the
cool stuff if you turn on autoplay and go do something else!
So, you don't even want to play the game because of how bad it is; yet, you're still trying to convince yourself and others that there's fun to be had.
Why? Seriously, why? If it were an idling/clicker game that you're supposed to leave alone or play in short bursts, I'd understand. But, when the game requires button presses, choices, and other shit from you, why in the hell is there an autoplay function?
It's like the developers knew they'd made a game that doesn't respect your time in the slightest, and tried to cover it up with a shitty mechanic. The game is actively telling you to go do something more fun! Instead of trying to defend it, uninstall it and do something that's actually fun!
Anyway, that's that. Maybe some of this shite will go away in 2024.
So, you don't even want to play the game because of how bad it is; yet, you're still trying to convince yourself and others that there's fun to be had.
Why? Seriously, why? If it were an idling/clicker game that you're supposed to leave alone or play in short bursts, I'd understand. But, when the game requires button presses, choices, and other shit from you, why in the hell is there an autoplay function?
It's like the developers knew they'd made a game that doesn't respect your time in the slightest, and tried to cover it up with a shitty mechanic. The game is actively telling you to go do something more fun! Instead of trying to defend it, uninstall it and do something that's actually fun!
Anyway, that's that. Maybe some of this shite will go away in 2024.
No comments:
Post a Comment