It's perfectly fair to criticize it when said gameplay concept looks like it was made for braindead morons._Memento_
Wait, are you saying games based around wholesale slaughter are for idiots? Why? Are you saying Doom is for idiots? There's something very satisfying about killing, and the more you do, the better it feels.
Left 4 Dead is a first person shooter, and the distinction between "moronic" first person shooter and a "smart" first person shooter is about half an inch.
There are some intelligent first person shooters out there - SS2, DX, the early Rainbow Six games, but the reality is that most shooters, whether it's Half Life or F.E.A.R or Crysis or Halo, are all as dumb as eachother.I don't understand how any typical FPS intellectually demands more from the player or intellectually gives more to the player than in L4D. It's all just point and shoot in the end, and some wrapping paper plot that exists solely to give context to the gunplay hardly makes a shooter intelligent.
I judge games on a universal standard; if the game's concept seems like repetitive_Memento_
Well, all games are inherently repetitive by their very nature. Be it Pacman or Halo, you're repeating the same few activities over and over. How repetitive a game is is tempered only by how fun it is, which is of course purely subjective.
Creating an incredibly deep and ambitious game is much, much harder than creating a shallow game like Left4Dead._Memento_
I don't disagree, but, uh, so? Some of the simplest games are the most enjoyable. I judge games by how enjoyable they are because that's really all that matters. In one of my favourite games, all you do is draw shapes. Incredibly simple concept - and, yes, incredibly repetitive - but also executed perfectly, and it's an incredibly fun game.
Sure, the ambitious game might have some flaws/bugs etc. (that's always the case with almost any game that's incredibly complex and deep), whereas a game like Left4Dead might successfully manage to accomplish its goal of being a simple game where you shoot endless waves of zombies. But does that make Left4Dead better than the ambitious game? According to your silly logic, it does._Memento_
I think you misread me. All I said was that a game isn't necessarily bad because the gameplay concept doesn't appeal to the particular individual. For instance, I don't like space games, but that doesn't mean I think they're all terrible. If I were to judge one, I would struggle to remain objective because I really can't stand them, so I don't judge them at all, or if I do, I qualify it with the explanation that I don't like the genre as a whole.
I think you're trying to turn my point into a simple & polished game is automatically better than an ambitious & buggy game type thing, but that's not what I said at all. At all. One of my all-time favourite games is Bloodlines.
But above all else, how much I enjoy the game is all that matters to me. Whether I'm experiencing an intricate and complicated story, blowing away swarms of zombies or just drawing shapes.
I guess all devs should start aiming low because they'll have a better chance of properly executing their simple and unambitious goals (and therefore, creating the better game, according to you)._Memento_
You have gotten better at dawing conclusions! (3)
Do I even need to respond to this? I mean, really? I like a broad variety of genres. I love deep, engrossing games, I love simple, fun games. Above all, I love well designed games. Left 4 Dead is simple, sure, but it's also very, very enjoyable. I mean, I still play the original Doom because I love the satisfaction of slaughtering things. That doesn't mean I don't long for another game like System Shock 2 or Fallout, though. Sometimes I want wine, sometimes I want vodka. You know?
Log in to comment