MLMarkland said:
People can have high standards for movies and still enjoy great movies, games aren't any different. There's no need to lower standards for content. It's hard to have fun with bad games and the vast majority of major releases in the past two years have been atrocious.
Ah, glad to see we can agree on something. :D
This quote from their own comments, by the author of the article themselves, puts this into a clearer light:
Dumbfuck said:
Yeah, I'm not about to bash anything. I may not get the Wii's appeal, but I'm not about to say that millions and millions of people around the world are just stupid or wrong for enjoying it.
THAT, by the way, is the kind of thing I won't tolerate around here. Don't mind Sony fans (obviously we'll get those), and I don't mind telling everyone how much you love the PS3 or whatever. But NO senseless bashing on other systems just 'cuz you don't like 'em.
P.S. Not talking about anyone in particular; just a general comment there.
The article writer also neglects the most important fact: Most "professional gaming journalists" today are kids without any other marketable skills to do much else than reprint press kits with a thesaurus in their lap. Then there's a greater portion who believe the thesaurus died out around the same time as the T. Rex.
Most of them don't have a clue about the history of the industry besides what they could read in timeline articles, and the others like Desslock swallowed their integrity along with a bitter shot from a publisher's PR department and became shameless media whores.
When those who report and discuss games are that ignorant, then yes, the majority of the gaming audience will in turn be sycophantic morons. If knowing the history of the industry makes me "elite" in their eyes, I couldn't be happier, except when it comes to the recent releases, which couldn't be crappier.
Vibalist said:
All that really changed when I put my expectations aside and took those games for what they are, namely fairly entertaining romps that certainly have a lot of good (mindless
) fun to offer, even if the writing isn't good or the setting isn't consistant.
Why should I accept a cheap knock-off with design that doesn't suit the setting and series? If it was called something else, that would be fine, but essentially it was another Star Wars Episode I.
Sure, Fallout 3 might be some fun, particularly if you can use the console commands like the QA did to bypass the problems inherent to the shitty design. The main enjoyment comes from having some experience in QA to laugh at the wholesale amateurishness of the design/QA. Oh, and if you find the Havok physics engine to be entertaining (though I'd rather play Gary's Mod for something like that).
It can't really be called non-linear, because several quests break once you get past certain points in the linear-as-my-lower-intestine story path, often completely borking the AI to the point where NPCs will travel halfway across the map in an opposite direction to get to a location, and then still end up dying. Yeah, that level scaling thing again from Oblivious, and the "innovative" Retardiant AI in action. Many quests assume you went through and scoured a few locations early on without taking into consideration the main storyline.
Oblivion, Fallout 3, and Ass Effect could only be given merit of entertainment in the same way folks could watch a B Movie - for the pure awfulness that wraps back around the scale to become unintentionally entertaining in a way other than the developer intended, if you have the patience to stick it out. Some people like Troma, which is fine. But calling that quality? No way in hell, and imagine if Troma bought the rights to make a Mad Max sequel...and there you have Fallout 3. Unfortunately, the comparison breaks down there once you take into account that Bethesda and BioWare truly are serious about their work, while Troma admits to being 100% Cheese.
As for Ass Effect, I'm surprised that Uwe Boll's name isn't listed in the credits.