Yet it wasn't released 5-10 years ago. It was released a few days ago after being completed this year. And there probably isn't even 5-10 year old code still there.Originally Posted by Xtincthed
Why shouldn't it be graded by the standards of today?
Yet it wasn't released 5-10 years ago. It was released a few days ago after being completed this year. And there probably isn't even 5-10 year old code still there.
Why shouldn't it be graded by the standards of today?
Last edited by Leo_A; 06-22-2011 at 10:29 PM.
I'm one who thinks all reviewers should review games based on all games available. I'm a Dragon Warrior fan, used to love the original Dragon Warrior, but now think it sucks. You know why? When it was the only game of its type out there, then obvioiusly it was a great game, but with more games released there's something to compare it to, and what I come up with is that the original Dragon Warrior is one of the worst JRPGs ever developed.
We bash games like Final Fantasy 13 for being worse than other games in past generations, so why should Duke Nukem Forever be any different on newer games? I have no interest in Duke Nukem Forever and really don't know if it sucks or not, but you're saying the same things people say about an old game that is clearly a pos says when defending a favorite of theirs. "It was great for its time." Except that Duke Nukem Forever's time is right now, in the year 2011.
However, review sites like IGN, Gamespot, etc, don't even follow that. Going by their ratings, nearly ever game released in the past few years is 3/5 or better. Meaning that every game is worth playing. And it's the worst games with the best scores.
Last edited by kupomogli; 06-22-2011 at 10:27 PM.
Everything in the above post is opinion unless stated otherwise.
Why shouldn't the standards be examined? Because you'd quickly find that there is none. Your question becomes, "Why shouldn't a game be graded by no standard?"
DNF is what it is, and it's not a 3/10. The Witcher 2 review basically said the game was gorgeous and had an interesting storyline, but everything else was utterly broken... 9/10
Have you ever seen an amateur review like this:
Gameplay: 9
Graphics: 7
Sound: 6
Story: 5
Replay: 8
Overall: 4
Or
Gameplay: 4
Graphics: 9
Sound: 6
Story: 8
Replay: 3
Overall: 9
That's some budding 'pros' right there.
Last edited by Icarus Moonsight; 06-23-2011 at 01:58 AM.
This signature is dedicated to all those
cyberpunks who fight against injustice
and corruption every day of their lives
How on earth would this game have been mind blowing 5 (or more) years ago? Today's standards? I really don't think standards have changed all that much in the last five years. Five years ago, the standards for graphics an AI were a bit lower, but that's about it.
That's not to say every ounce of negativity is justified; some may be going too far. But it's not as though (many) people are saying "old game sucks 3/10".
Maybe journalists aren't required to know simple math any longer? Maybe Duke Nukem Forever scored higher, they're just too stupid to see the average is much higher than a four.
If those are really the review scores, I see them having a conversation like this.
"The gameplay is shit so we should give it a four, but overall the game needs to get a nine because we've got these advertisements up everywhere. Six months from now it'll go in our most disappointing games of 2011 list."
Everything in the above post is opinion unless stated otherwise.
No, that's not taken from this specific instance. It's just simplified examples of "user" type reviews that sort of set a comparison and gives a similar review scenario with DNF and Witcher 2. It's not a direct parallel, but the outcome is just about the same, fan supplied or done for pay.
It seems to be the only standard I'm seeing as of late when there is room for doubt or argument. One of two things happen; either something actually decent gets shit on, or an over-hyped and flashy turd is lauded.
This signature is dedicated to all those
cyberpunks who fight against injustice
and corruption every day of their lives
Which is precisely why number ratings are stupid, period.
I give this post a 6 out of 10.
That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, or with the post I was replying to.
He's complaining that a brand new game that was just released is being graded against other games of today.
He isn't complaining that reviewers were praising several elements of the game, but seemingly out of no where, gave it a low average score that made no sense despite praise for the humor, graphics, gameplay, etc.
They're pretty much being critical of every element of the game.
Last edited by Leo_A; 06-23-2011 at 06:36 PM.
This is utterly confusing even me now... I'll restate it so to make it clear.
The Witcher 2 is a game released in the same time window as DNF... And by their (Game Informer) review (not by their scoring), it's a worse game than DNF. How? They said it did have excellent graphics and a compelling story, but the rest was broken. That gets a 9.25
This signature is dedicated to all those
cyberpunks who fight against injustice
and corruption every day of their lives
Clearly, they apparantly think the graphics and story makes it worth putting up with the rest. And somehow I doubt they used those words and gave it that score, or said anything of the sort (Edit: I looked it up and they praised a heck of a lot more than just that; I don't see the harm in being open that there are some significant problems with a game, yet still being so impressed with it that you give it a excellent score).This is utterly confusing even me now... I'll restate it so to make it clear.
The Witcher 2 is a game released in the same time window as DNF... And by their (Game Informer) review (not by their scoring), it's a worse game than DNF. How? They said it did have excellent graphics and a compelling story, but the rest was broken. That gets a 9.25
And again since you don't seem to understand this, he said that DNF (A just released game) should be graded by standards from years ago rather than today. He wasn't complaining that reviewers criticized many elements of the game yet gave it a high overall score, or the opposite, that they praised many elements of the game yet still gave it a low overall score..
If you look up reviews for the score from major media sources for game reviews, the overall score reflects what they think of the individual components. So exactly what the heck does this Witcher 2 example, from a single review source, have to do with this like you seem to think it does?
I'd love to know, since I'm clearly puzzled and can't establish the connection that you think is there with those post.
Last edited by Leo_A; 06-23-2011 at 08:34 PM.
All this stuff about "today's standards" and games being "good for their time" is a big pet peeve of mine. Games aren't any better now than they were in the past, and games don't magically change and get worse as they age. If your opinion on a game changes later on, it's either because your tastes changed or because you were blinded as to how the game really was back when you first played it (probably because of hype convincing you that it's awesome because it's shiny and new). Standards for games have never changed either. All that people expect out of a game, whether made in the '70s or made in 2011, is that it's fun to play, has well-functioning code, and, in terms of audio and visuals, is artistically pleasing and puts the capabilities of the hardware to good use.
DNF is definitely caught up in a huge hype machine right now, and even though I couldn't care less about the game, it's been fun to watch the internet implode over it. I think many of these people coming to dramatic conclusions about it need to give the game a try again in a year or two or five, when the hype is gone and people can play with a clear perspective. Then we'll see how many people still think it's terrible/awesome.
92.5% is not what you grant something that nails the surface and a story arch, but fucks up everything else. It has no foundation, the main points that constitute a game are broken... Put it up with the upper 10%
Sounds to me like it would have done very well as a passive movie experience, rather than a video game - which it fails at, if the review is accurate (YT guy backed up their points... So, until I hear or experience otherwise, that's what I got to go from).
I responded to your standards question. What he says doesn't bear to me. What I say does. Obviously, I think you are both mistaken. Time is irrelevant in regard to quality.And again since you don't seem to understand this, he said that DNF (A just released game) should be graded by standards from years ago rather than today.
Double standards -- The art of appearing to have a standard while actually having none.If you look up reviews for the score from major media sources for game reviews, the overall score reflects what they think of the individual components. So exactly what the heck does this Witcher 2 example, from a single review source, have to do with this like you seem to think it does?
I'd love to know, since I'm clearly puzzled and can't establish the connection that you think is there with those post.
Last edited by Icarus Moonsight; 06-24-2011 at 04:55 AM.
This signature is dedicated to all those
cyberpunks who fight against injustice
and corruption every day of their lives
To be honest, I stopped caring about what the mainstream reviewers say after how badly they trashed Hyperdimension Neptunia. Sure, it does have some problems, but it is a solid game; certainly better than the trainwreck that was Diddy Kong Racing DS, which has a much higher score on Gamespot
I'd like to respectfully disagree with you here, and I'll explain why...
If you look at a game like, say, Cybermorph for the Jaguar, which was really the first console based "go anywhere, do anything you want next" type game for any console. When it came out, it was a pretty mindblowing experience, and it was reviewed mostly positively.
When people look back at it, the game does not get the same sort of positive reaction. The reasons cited is a very poor draw distance, missions that are all the same, and so on. If fact, if you compare it even to Battlemorph which was released on the Jaguar CD about two-ish years after Cybermorph came out, it's clear that it was superior to it in basically every way.
Were reviewers who gave it a good score wrong to have reviewed it positively initially? No, I don't think so -- it was so different.
Did it not age gracefully because within a couple years a ton of new games had taken the idea and ran with it, improving on it greatly? Absolutely.
So how does this apply to Duke? I agree -- it should be reviewed as a game with the standards of 2011 and put up against the other similar games that came out. I have no issue with a reviewer comparing DNF to, say Killzone 3 and pointing out gameplay discrepancies that they have with it. I do think a number of reviewers are jaded by the fact they play so many games, and they can't look at it through the lens of that some people don't like the newer Halo gameplay, and that isn't wrong either, but it is wrong to say, "hey, this was good, and this was good, and this was okay, and this was good, and this wasn't the best, and I didn't like the humor -- It's worthless."
Dan Loosen
http://www.goatstore.com/ - http://www.midwestgamingclassic.com/
** Trying to finish up an overly complete Dreamcast collection... want to help? (Updated 5/3/10!) http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=61333
I would say the feeling of "Wow, I've never done this before in a game!" falls squarely in the realm of hype. Innovation is a wonderful thing, but even if it's a new type of game, it still needs to be a fun, solid game. Those problems with Cybermorph that people cite now were there from day one. The draw distance was always poor, the missions were always repetitive. Why didn't people notice then? Hype.
I can think of many examples in which a game was a very new experience for most people while still being loved and respected today like Super Mario 64, Katamari Damacy, etc. Cybermorph just isn't as good as those, and it never was.
As others have, I respectfully disagree with this argument. Yes, there are certain games that have a timeless quality because of the strong nature of their play mechanics. I agree that Super Mario 64, Katamari, etc...fit into this category. Those games will still be fun years from now because technology does very little to improve their capabilities. You can also think of these as fitting a similar mold to classic films.
There are also games that are so unique or innovative when they are released, largely because of technological breakthroughs, that they keep the attention of gamers at the time because of their very innovative or unique nature. Hype might be enough to get someone to buy a game, but it doesn't keep them playing it. I recall getting my Jaguar and being blown away by how amazing Cybermorph was at the time. I played it for days and days. I wasn't reacting to hype or convincing myself it was great. For that time period, it was a great game. It was fun and addictive and let me experience something I hadn't before. Over the years, however, as technology and the skills of development teams have improved, there were many other similar games that improved on Cybermorph in every way. Duke Nukem is like this in many ways. At the time, the humor and uniqueness of some of the gameplay innovations were very addictive to players, including myself. A decade and a half later, however, there are lots of games doing the same exact thing in many, many better ways. As such, Duke Nukem was one of those innovation based games that needed to keep pace with other similar games to be great. It did not, unfortunately, do it with this release.
There were people just as skilled at design, programming, graphic design, etc. in the 70s as there are now. That hasn't changed. You can say that certain individuals become more skilled as they increase their experience and knowledge, but not game developers as a whole. If that was the case, then why would anyone play older games if all new games were superior? Why would anyone still listen to Mozart and Beethoven?
The only thing that changes is the technology, which mostly only affects graphics and sound (once we got to the point that the storage mediums could hold as much code as a programmer would ever dream of writing, but more lengthy/complicated code doesn't necessarily make a game better either).
With Super Mario 64, technological breakthroughs were absolutely essential to it. The concept for it existed for many years and had to wait for technology to catch up. The N64 hardware was built basically for the sake of Super Mario 64. But despite all that reliance on hardware and technology, people still love SM64, regardless of the fact that 3D games are the norm now and that 3D hardware is far more powerful. There have been plenty of 3D platformers with more detailed graphics, larger worlds, more moves, etc. etc., but Super Mario 64 is still appreciated because it's a fun, solid game. It's exactly the same as the day it came out, and any game that was viewed as awesome in its time but lame now is no different. They were lame on day one, but no one realized it yet because they were too excited about having something new.
I strongly disagree and I think most classic game programmers would as well. The very means by which commercially released games are developed and programmed today is massively different than it was in the 70s, the 80s and even the 90s. There are entire teams of people devoted to various aspects of the design and programming and middleware tools for developing various aspects of the games. While a single programmer can develop what is generally described as a "casual game", they cannot successfully develop and program a 3D game without learning and using lots of tools that simply didn't exist decades ago. If all you knew is the same machine language or other programming languages that the Atari 2600 developers used, you absolutely could not be a successful programmer today. Things have changed way too much.
As for Super Mario 64, while I agree that the technology became available to realize games of that type, the game itself had charm, well designed levels and addictive gameplay that went well beyond the technology. There were lots of 3D platform games on the N64, many of which were popular at the time and fun to play, but they didn't have the timeless quality of Super Mario because over time, the gameplay didn't hold up.
People change, people grow and tastes change. Look at all the movies over the years that have won Academy Awards that people have zero interest in watching today. It doesn't change the fact that they were good movies, but it does reflect the fact that society and art progresses. Video games are the same way. Some games will always be classics because that particular part of society doesn't change and some games will only be great in the context of the time in which they were released because that part of society or our shared experiences has.
I've never played Cybermorph so I can't really say if it sucks or not, but what I've said about Dragon Warrior is similar.
Dragon Warrior was the only game of its type at its time and it was only good for that very reason. Out of all the later RPG releases that I've played, I don't think I've played a worse NES RPG than Dragon Warrior.
GTA3 and Vice City are two other games that fit except these two games were worse than either the Driver series or the earlier GTA titles.
So Cybermorph may have been a great game because it was the only thing available. There was just nothing else to compare it to, so it may have sucked, just not apparent because it was unique.
Everything in the above post is opinion unless stated otherwise.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
