Best game of the latest console generation

[VorpalEdge]

What is an objective criteria?

There are none.  Objective criteria 'only' describe the underlying form of something.  For talking about a medium devoted primarily to entertainment (and even to a large extent more practical mediums, like UI design), that is not good enough.  Think of all the papers you had to write for English classes in high school.  Sure, you can talk about alliteration, and identify themes, and all those things, but you don't think those made the work good, do you?  They're arguably necessary but certainly not sufficient conditions; they're tools in a toolbox, nothing more.  For every medium I've ever encountered, the talking about how something is done never quite matches up with what the end result is, and this disconnect is what everyone can kind of recognize but never really elaborate on.  I see it so often I think it must be universal.

This disconnect traces its roots back to Aristotle, who, for various unrelated reasons, decided the correct way to talk about things was to break them apart and enumerate all of the various ways in which they could be put together (this is the origin of the logos, pathos, ethos trinity about ways to argue that you may have heard of).  Now I'm vastly oversimplifying what he said, and this is all logically valid, but when we think of something as 'good' or not you must recognize that so-called subjectivity is an innate part of that.  There's no way around it, and you should honestly embrace it, because otherwise games would be a lot more boring.  What this means for talking about games, though, is that a large portion of said talking is going to be 'subjective', and you're just going to have to try convincing others to share in your experiences.  There's no fact you can wave around to make people enjoy games, sorry.

tl;dr you don't want objective criteria, and aristotle was a giant fucking dumbass.  also holy shit did i really drag aristotle into this?  you guys are going to laugh at me.

The last time I got in that argument things were looking so bad right away that it took me months to even convince the other guy to try and explain what he was thinking in the first place  =\  so I don't want to see this take that direction at all.

sorry, but i had to do it :(

[ZenicReverie]

Yeah, but if a game is really bad, I think we can all agree it's a bad game...

[VorpalEdge]

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not, lol.  Will assume you're not, though.

By subjectivity, I did not mean the total moral relativism that culture warriors always say is the result of allowing some subjectivity into discussion.  We're all human, and also products of western culture, and furthermore everyone here is also a gamer.  Not to downplay what we disagree on, but we also agree on a lot of stuff for reasons that are valid but not objective, so I can agree with that statement.

If you're making the argument that terrible mechanics can lead you to 'objectively' declare that a game is bad, then you've never played Radiata Stories.

[ZenicReverie]

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not, lol.  Will assume you're not, though.

By subjectivity, I did not mean the total moral relativism that culture warriors always say is the result of allowing some subjectivity into discussion.  We're all human, and also products of western culture, and furthermore everyone here is also a gamer.  Not to downplay what we disagree on, but we also agree on a lot of stuff for reasons that are valid but not objective, so I can agree with that statement.

If you're making the argument that terrible mechanics can lead you to 'objectively' declare that a game is bad, then you've never played Radiata Stories.

I agreed with you mostly. Just saying some games are just bad. Of course, even then people will get behind it for camp value or just for the fun of it because they like sarcasm or giving false information.

I haven't played Radiata Stories, but I do own it and will probably get to it next year some time. Which mechanics are terrible?

[InsipidMuckyWater]

We've ruined this thread.  Probably lock time.

SimTower (which of course isn't a "real" Sim game since it was made by a Japanese guy) has a pretty explicit progression and goal structure, and I personally found it a lot more fun than any of the others.  I think more generally I see Enhasa's point though; give people goals and they're almost always still free to mess around all they want (within whatever other rules the game has), but if you don't then there's not that extra option to beat the game or have closure.

Well of course Enhasa has a valid point.  That's kind of the background assumption.  My point is that you'd be impossibly burdened to actually suggest that a definite ending is always, in every case that could ever possibly ever be imagined ever, ever, ever (how much more would you like me to qualify this?), dispositive of a better game than one without.  Obviously, definite endings are generally preferred as evidenced by the market.

But this is all beside the point.  Definite endings are just an example of various characteristics of speedrunnable games that I don't think conclusively improves the quality of every game (qualifiers, etc.) in which it's present.

The last time I got in that argument things were looking so bad right away that it took me months to even convince the other guy to try and explain what he was thinking in the first place  =\  so I don't want to see this take that direction at all.  In fact, it seems to me that most quantitative measurements of a game would be stupid shit that you should absolutely never compare seriously like "lines of dialogue" or "amount of time it takes a given person to complete

Man, I was really hoping you guys would not actually take up this issue.  Two of you did.  Lol.  Shame on you!

Of COURSE this is a pointless argument.  Believe me, I've been in the argument myself more times than I would like (being a philosophy whore has its downsides).  That being said, I think there's actually good reason to argue that there is objectivity to be found in entertainment venues, which I know seems counter-intuitive at first glance.  I won't get into it.  I really never wanted to actually get into this.  I just thought, "Hey, what if someone replied and asked what an objective criteria actually was, since I keep shooting down Enhasa's idea that difficulty might arguably be one or close to one, or whatever.... Hmmm, I guess I'd give more credence to the idea of player autonomy if I had to answer off the top of my head and I didn't feel like giving a wuss out like that 'couldn't tell you."

but then what are we fighting fooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Lol

I wasn't talking about the general issue of almost every Japanese box art ever being one or many characters front and center (the first exceptions coming to mind because they're awesome being Ico, Radiata Stories and Shin Megami Tensei II PS1 version), but the specific fact that it's so pervasive that they even come up with characters to throw on the box even if there's no story to even try to justify them.  Stuff like Ouendan and PaRappa get a pass because they do have stories, but this for example

has absolutely nothing to do with the game.

Oh, yeah, I know, but like always I took it so I could mention something I wanted to say.  Lol.  

I remember that happening, but because the PMs died at the forum merger, I literally cannot remember a single thing I actually wrote.

Me neither.

There are none.  Objective criteria 'only' describe the underlying form of something....

Yeah, I for one cannot believe you'd bring Aristotle into this.  But, BRAVO for recognizing that Aristotle is the biggest charlatan (okay not really, but anyway) in philosophy and the biggest mistake to science that was directly involved in either.  And for that matter, I'm not sure why you got into the Republic, unless of course my sons of Ariston comment got your gears turning.

Anywaaaay, I don't agree with the main points of your post (later philosophy>early philosophy), but I like your discussion.

[Beenman500]

i really liked mass effect. that game had great story and easy game  play made it totaly immersive.

[Enhasa]

^ genius post, even if accidental genius


I have a feeling like some time in the distant future someone will link to this thread after one of us involves one-liners them.


spineshark: I don't consider something that's broken to be good for speedrunning. When I say good for running, I mean "leads to being interesting to run" not "leads to faster times." Having a broken move you can just spam is bad for playing and running.

Maybe I'm just a moron but seriously like even when I played God Hand at first and died over and over again, I thought "wow am I even going to beat this." I guess it's implied "am I going to beat this before giving up aka without a lot of difficulty." Because if I really wanted to and put the time into it, I'm sure I could beat any game released today or maybe ever (say, if I devoted my life to it), because any game that excludes me is going to exclude most everyone. I don't think freeware games (that are meant to be finished at all) would even do that. Also I don't credit feed or grind but you know that already. So I have this feeling with RPGs too (most recent was VP2, again last generation), although most people (even awful players) would never ever feel this way with any RPG. Then again most people wouldn't feel this way with credit feedable games either.

Also, Ico's Japanese box art doesn't have characters front and center. I know this because it's a classic example that everyone talks about for our box art being worse. I agree 100% in this case though.

I can give you your old PMs if you want. Not in the current system, but as html files for inbox and outbox.

Haha, nice.  Anyway, no you didn't say that, but come on it was implied.

No, I really wasn't implying it. Honest to goodness. Saying "I can't come up with any counterexamples" does not imply "there are no counterexamples." That was never my intention, trust me.

But yes, I personally think any endless game would be a better game with an end. Better game, not a better money-making machine. About the Sims, SimCity has scenarios that have endings, and those work just fine. In fact I like the scenarios more. Kill screen doesn't count as an end to me, and they weren't put there on purpose. I would say DK is endless, and it would be better if it had an ending. If a game loops though, it's not a big deal to me.

What is an objective criteria?

There are none.  Objective criteria 'only' describe the underlying form of something.  For talking about a medium devoted primarily to entertainment (and even to a large extent more practical mediums, like UI design), that is not good enough.

Um, you mean there are no worthwhile objective criteria? Because I can think of infinitely many objective criteria for games. "Does this game have penguins?" This is all in user land inside the game too (not stuff like "how many CDs?"), since that's what you're implying.

Also, Radiata Stories only has bad mechanics while fighting (and they're far from terrible, just alright... most RPG systems are much much much worse), the rest of the mechanics are great. If I thought the game had terrible mechanics, I wouldn't like the game at all. I don't know that I like any game that I think has terrible mechanics. Closest is Eternal Sonata, but I don't like that game and think it sucks and don't recommend it to people. Best thing I can say is that I somewhat appreciated playing it once. That doesn't mean I actually like it.


Zenic: The only reason why anyone says Radiata Stories has a bad battle system is because it directly followed Star Ocean 3 (probably the best ARPG system in existence) and had essentially a dumbed down SO3 system. Compare it to the average action RPG and it actually beats it handily. I mean, you don't hear people generally saying Kingdom Hearts's battle system is crap, and it's much much worse than Radiata's. The difference is the people who played RS had higher standards.

[InsipidMuckyWater]

I have a feeling like some time in the distant future someone will link to this thread after one of us involves one-liners them.

Haha, yeah probably.

I can give you your old PMs if you want. Not in the current system, but as html files for inbox and outbox.

Wow, really?  Sure, send me a link sometime.

No, I really wasn't implying it. Honest to goodness. Saying "I can't come up with any counterexamples" does not imply "there are no counterexamples." That was never my intention, trust me.

I didn't mean that you implied it, but I think it's fair to say the average person would think you were suggesting it. But even if you didn't mean that originally and only meant something less severe than, "Well, there just simply could NOT be a game that was an exception," I still think the interpretation is fair that you were saying that if there are any exceptions, they're probably so obscure you have never encountered them.   My point was to think of some that you had that might stand as counterexamples.  And as for that...

But yes, I personally think any endless game would be a better game with an end. Better game, not a better money-making machine. About the Sims, SimCity has scenarios that have endings, and those work just fine. In fact I like the scenarios more. Kill screen doesn't count as an end to me, and they weren't put there on purpose. I would say DK is endless, and it would be better if it had an ending. If a game loops though, it's not a big deal to me.

I guess we'll just disagree.  Even if we do, though, I still think I'm naturally right given that you're saying it is impossible to conceive of a contrary situation.  Impossible.  And sure, you didn't use the word 'impossible' anywhere, but let's please not quibble about that.  In this case, you've said 'any' several times now, so I think that's sufficient.  Anyway, I don't honestly believe one can really mean that unless they're just not thinking about it objectively or not thinking about it for a long enough time.  If you think DK is better the way it is, that's fine, but we know there's at least a community of people who disagree.  I know that doesn't affect your opinion necessarily, but to me that says there is a very dedicated group of experts who disagree.  Can you find such a group for any opinion?  Probably, yeah. But that's the point in not making statements outrageously broad.  I know you're going to say you don't care about those groups and those opinions, and I'm not really intending to say that you should. But, if you go back to your feeling that there are objective criteria for judging games, well, then you might not be in line with that objective criteria since you aren't allowing for even the most absurdly unlikely hypothetical situation to disprove you.

I think you guys are getting too distracted with this definite ending bit.  Personally, I think analogizing to SimCity is faulty, since we're talking about Sims.  I'm not going to get into explaining why, because that would just further encourage people to miss the point.  Same with WoW.  I still think WoW stops existing as soon as you place a definite ending to it... again, one that's not illusory.  Hence, persistent world.  Yeah yeah, they COULD have made everybody once they reach 70 or whatever be eligible for some quest or other that concludes the game.... bam, credit sequence and everything.  But, assuming that player could still play the game after that, what ending did that even really suggest?  Many games allow you to continue once you've beaten the title, but games like WoW are extraordinarily different from that in ways I think are pretty obvious.  I mean, does Everquest have an ending? Persistent worlds and many many MMO's for that matter are almost necessarily counterexamples (As even the language suggests), because of their nature.  If WoW just suddenly ended, character retired or what have you, bum de dah, well, wouldn't that seem more similar to something like Dragon Age or the umpteen million other games of its kind?  But surely, Blizzard's intent was not to make another game like that, and the people who play into WoW and contribute to its popularity, for whatever it's worth, do not appear to want that, either.

Before I continue, let me restress that WoW is just supposed to be an example that was used to illustrate a point. I have no intention of praising WoW for the way it's designed or whatever, and really if the way I've painted this picture seems inaccurate to you, well even that shouldn't matter because we're talking about conceivability.  

What is an objective criteria?

Um, you mean there are no worthwhile objective criteria? Because I can think of infinitely many objective criteria for games. "Does this game have penguins?" This is all in user land inside the game too (not stuff like "how many CDs?"), since that's what you're implying.

Haha.  A lot of this problem comes down to the combination of "objective" and "value".  The common face value argument (in this case, not what he was really saying) says that 'value' (like goodness or badness, quality) is incompatible with objectivity.  If one were to say, "No no, I don't want to know objective facts about the game, I want to know objective facts about how people should feel about the game."  Of course, the obvious problem here is that they're asking for something seemingly impossible, since most people would argue that 'feeling' necessarily precludes objectivity.  

I disagree with the question outright, though, if people use definitions like that.  That's one of many reasons I believe there are objective criteria, because subjective shouldn't mean "relativism", and the question is broken if it does mean that to you, and because objective shouldn't mean "not subject to interpretation", and the question is again broken if it does mean that to you.

[Enhasa]

Well I didn't want to make an outrageously broad statement (to me, "I can't think of any" implies "I didn't try very hard" not "any example will be highly obscure"... I keep repeating this but I'm not sure you believe me), and I know I was never trying to imply that, but for now let's just say that I did. Ok, then I can take that back. I mean, I'm wrong like thousands of times daily. I'm cool with that, and I tend not to have strong opinions, so I'm easily disproved.

Make sure not to mix "I don't think anything bad for running is good for a game" with "nothing bad for running is good for a game." The first one is my opinion, which I am not trying to push on anyone, so of course I can believe it, and of course if you go by the general consensus (which is not me!) you can quickly show people tend to disagree with the latter statement. Here's an easy example. I think randomness is bad both for running and for a game. The vast majority of people like randomness for a game though. It's less fair but more exciting, and people like that. That's why people play the lottery and other games of chance. Poker would be infinitely less popular if there was a variant with no luck somehow. The trick to its success is that people hype up the skill, but most people play because they hope to get lucky and anyone can beat anyone. In games, when the same move does the same damage every time in some RPGs, people don't like that. They prefer some varying (aka random) damage.

In all games, I shun away from randomness now though. This is why I don't play poker anymore, I don't play MTG, fantasy sports, traditional (meaning enemies get to attack you without you being able to avoid the possibility) RPGs, and really whatever other luck-based games. Life itself is based enough on luck. I don't need my entertainment to be. Of course, this is not an absolute rule, it's not a religion or anything, I've just come to have this sort of preference. My tolerance for luck is low. The above games are indeed based on a lot of skill, and a better player will win a lot more in the long run (I'm better at fantasy sports than I am at video games -- there are a lot of people better than me at video games), it's just still too much luck for me.

I prefer fairness over luck in everything, and either other people don't agree or it's so engrained they don't notice. Football is the #1 sport in the US because it's "exciting" and "a big play can happen at any moment," meaning it's very luck-based. You can force 3 and out, drive down the field, kick a FG, 3 and out, drive down and kick another FG, another 3 and out, drive down the field, get your FG blocked and returned for a TD, and you're losing. What kind of crap is that. You're severely outplaying the other team, in my mind you ought to be winning. This is why I prefer basketball, because the sample size for the number of events in any one game is just so large. When a game comes down to the final shot, it's amazing that any of hundreds of little events throughout the entire game could have affected the outcome. Of course, this is why most people are bored about basketball and say only the last couple minutes are worth watching. You can't have some crazy lucky play early on you might miss if you go to the bathroom, that determines the whole game, like INT returned for TD.


So when I say "I think endless games would be better with goals," I'm not saying that anyone else should think so. There's no burden on me to prove it since I'm not selling this idea to anyone. Again, this is just my personal opinion. It would be pointless to try to prove it for all people.

[spineshark]

Well, it's my fault for not understanding what you meant better in the first place Enhasa, it's pretty obvious in retrospect.

Also I'll probably feel kind of dumb and embarrassed reading them but I guess I wouldn't mind seeing those PMs again haha

Funny you mention God Hand though, since now that I think of it I did almost give up on thinking I was able to beat it when I got to the fight with the swordmaster.  When I came back a few months later though, I actually learned how to play (dodge in other words) and had almost no trouble with the rest of the game.

IMW mentioned Demon's Souls earlier, and even though I've played it quite a bit I had a lot of trouble figuring out what I really think about it.  I've seen a lot of people write things like "it's hard but fair," which I agree with to some degree.  The problem I have with a statement like that is that in this case the things that make it "fairer" tend to make it easier as well.  On it's own, it's a fairly difficult game, and one where learning your character and the basics of the game matter a lot, but there are also lot of things that aren't especially intuitive, and a lot of things that are so powerful and sudden as to be nearly unavoidable deaths the first time you see them.

But that's why the...uhh, I'm not sure what word to use for this, it's not "multiplayer" (since it's not multiplayer in any sort of standard sense) or even "community" (that's close, but it still has implications that aren't really applicable)...aspects are important.  You have your own world, even if you're online, but when you're alone you can interact with other people in more subtle ways than bashing monsters next to them.  People can leave messages around that other players can read in their own games, and they'll usually give information about what's coming up like maybe "don't attack this guy."  Of course, they can lie, but the game gives incentive not to (you recover health when people approve your message).  You can also find lots of bloodstains around, and using them will show what happened to its owner when they died nearby (but it's just them, not whatever enemies they might have been fighting).

There's also a couple direct elements, where you call in help if you're having too much trouble with a boss (or offer to help someone, who can then do the calling), but it's certainly not necessary.

The other big equalizer is that even, or maybe especially if you die a lot, as long as you keep recovering your souls, it's a little like grinding in other RPGs.  It's mitigated by the fact that if you suck it doesn't matter if you're wearing the best equipment and have really good stats, but it is notable.   Overall, I'd definitely say the action elements are much more important to success, though occasionally they get botched up by the designers (mostly, a handful of enemies are incredibly stupid and easy to kill but take way too long, and some of those are optional anyway).  The RPG stuff is still important, but the equipment management much more so than stat-whoring (except for Vitality and Luck (which isn't very useful anyway) the stats are more for being able to equip things than making your character stronger) which is how it should be.

It's good, and I think you (Enhasa) would probably like it but I'm not entirely sure.  Unlike you, I'm not going to go all relative right here, saying it's obviously alright just because everything else has been sucky and easy =p

[InsipidMuckyWater]

Well I didn't want to make an outrageously broad statement (to me, "I can't think of any" implies "I didn't try very hard" not "any example will be highly obscure"... I keep repeating this but I'm not sure you believe me), and I know I was never trying to imply that, but for now let's just say that I did. Ok, then I can take that back. I mean, I'm wrong like thousands of times daily. I'm cool with that, and I tend not to have strong opinions, so I'm easily disproved.

"I didn't try very hard" = lol!  I guess I hadn't thought of it that way.

Make sure not to mix "I don't think anything bad for running is good for a game" with "nothing bad for running is good for a game." The first one is my opinion, which I am not trying to push on anyone, so of course I can believe it, and of course if you go by the general consensus (which is not me!) you can quickly show people tend to disagree with the latter statement.

Yeah, like I was saying I don't deny that you're entitled to your opinion.  Where I was getting confused was when you originally started by suggesting that there were some objective criteria for judging the quality of a game and how it seemed later that you were taking the subjective route towards that criteria with the whole speedrunning thing.  

If that was a misunderstanding on my part, my bad.  Either way, the debate seems to have run its course.

In all games, I shun away from randomness now though.

That's an interesting philosophy.  Yeah, Marioparty is kind of a good example of that.  Win every minigame in the match and then someone lands on a chance spot or whatever they're called and suddenly you have no stars.  

There's no burden on me to prove it since I'm not selling this idea to anyone. Again, this is just my personal opinion. It would be pointless to try to prove it for all people.

Right.  I just figured that since you stated the opinion publicly you'd be willing to discuss it.  Or, if nothing else, I could state my own personal opinions in response.  No hard feelings.

Spineshark:  I'm glad to hear your opinions on that game, because I can't seem to get a straight opinion on it from anyone (well, from anyone whose opinion is worth a damn).  But even yours was an ambivalent one.  haha

When you said you weren't sure how you felt about it, did you just mean in terms of difficulty or in terms of whether you enjoyed it or not?  You said it was good later, but would you say it was one of the best this generation or not so much?

I've heard the hard but fair line several times now in regard to this game, as well.  It sounds like people just mean, "It's not impossibly hard," when they say it.  That is, it's mostly hard, but there are enough 'easy' morsels dropped along the way to keep you going.

[spineshark]

"I didn't try very hard" = lol!  I guess I hadn't thought of it that way.

Enhasa is very zen.

When you said you weren't sure how you felt about it, did you just mean in terms of difficulty or in terms of whether you enjoyed it or not?

Both, really.  I mean, is it hard?  I die a lot, but the game doesn't give me reason not to, so my play style tends to be running straight into unfamiliar situations a lot to see how they play out.  (There are consequences (which can be considered positive or negative depending on your goals) if your next death after killing a boss happens outside of the home base, but that's all)  I don't really think it makes the game harder that I'm allowed to die as much as I want and take advantage of it.  And what I've heard from people who've cleared a second loop (where you retain your stats and equipment) is that they all died much less, even though the enemies are a lot stronger and will kill you even more easily, for whatever that's worth.

As for whether I like it or not, I do, and I said as much (that's all I can possibly mean by "It's good"), but it's complicated.  First, there's an overall feeling that the developers don't care if you like it or not.  Things that people usually go crazy over like story and music are marginalized (which certainly isn't all bad) but there's also nothing welcoming or friendly about the game.  The tutorial ends with an almost unavoidable death and if you do get past it then you get an actual unavoidable death (though before that you get rewarded for being great).  The other characters are curt and unfriendly at best and there's a frequent horror vibe in general.

I think ultimately that all that stuff works well and is good when put together, but I can't avoid having mixed feelings about it.  At the very least, I can't say that I feel there's any aspect of the game they watered down to aim for broader appeal.  And that's maybe the best praise I could possibly give it.

would you say it was one of the best this generation or not so much?

Sure, I would definitely go that far, though as I've said before, that's not really a strong statement coming from me.  A much more interesting question is if I think it holds up next to games I've liked from the past few, but I don't know how I'd answer that.  I haven't beaten it, and I'm not sure if it'll have lasting appeal for me or just be something I admire but don't feel like playing more in retrospect.  But despite a few gaffes it's really solid and I have to give it credit for some of its most original elements (like the messages and bloodstains).

[Beenman500]

this thred is ridicuous, you guys have way too many opinions that dont matter

[ColonelFatso]

this thred is ridicuous, you guys have way too many opinions that dont matter

Opinions create discussion, discussion promotes growth and understanding. I don't feel it's a bad thing to state and expand upon your opinion, especially on a discussion forum. Even just watching a thread like this one unfold is interesting.

[ZenicReverie]

this thred is ridicuous, you guys have way too many opinions that dont matter

Opinions create discussion, discussion promotes growth and understanding. I don't feel it's a bad thing to state and expand upon your opinion, especially on a discussion forum. Even just watching a thread like this one unfold is interesting.

most people cut off their growths because they're unsightly.