Why exactly do we discredit downloadable games from discussion?

I don't really understand why this is done. The only good reasons I can think of is that a bunch of them that are good don't get reviewed but can't we like use metacritic or something to fill in those gaps? I understand the idea of lower standards but isn't it also equally true that the games are also lower in price? A game is a game is a game, I'm not quite sure why we should segregate them because you can't buy them on a disc. Anyone have any good reasons? I'm interested in your opinions.

well, what can we expect from someone that thinks the Wii is a better gaming console than the other 2?

Because to tell you the truth the answer is quite obvious.

well, what can we expect from someone that thinks the Wii is a better gaming console than the other 2?

Because to tell you the truth the answer is quite obvious.

Gue1

If the answer is quite obvious why don't you just say it?

I also have stated I like my Wii more than the PS3 or 360. I never said it was the better console. Its outclassed in most ways, just not the ways that matter to me.

Are people seriously voting "No"?

Are people seriously voting "No"?

PatchMaster

Of course they are. What would SW be if there wasn't someone there to ignore all logic and promote something ridiculous? :P

PC will have too much of an advantage.GhoX

PC already clearly won SW anyway, widening the gap really wouldn't matter.

[QUOTE="GhoX"]PC will have too much of an advantage.ActicEdge

PC already clearly won SW anyway, widening the gap really wouldn't matter.

And I don't undertstand it either . Some downloadable games are far superior to their retail brethren .

Castle Crashers , Bastion, Limbo are all games that will be remembered for quite awhile. Not exactly fair to cut them out.

Being retail kings, cows will say no.

Seing stupid, lems will say no.

Sheep, well sheep are fvcking batsh!t crazy.

Hermits don't care....

God knows.

Agreed TC. A game is a game.

I really don't understand.They're still video games,and some could potentially be better than some retail games.

The reason DL Games are not allowed is simple, it would not fit the Sony and Nintendo biased agenda around here.

A good game money/quality-wise is a good game money/quality-wise.
However, factoring out the money, is *insert 'downloadable' game* just as good as *insert 'retail' game*?

This kind of thinking changes the definition of "AAA" et. al variants, causing the separation between the two.

Note: I use "downloadable" and "retail" rather loosely.

A good game money/quality-wise is a good game money/quality-wise.
However, factoring out the money, is *insert 'downloadable' game* just as good as *insert 'retail' game*?

This kind of thinking changes the definition of "AAA" et. al variants, causing the separation between the two.

Note: I use "downloadable" and "retail" rather loosely.

Technoweirdo

By this logic, is a AAA PC game in 2012 = to a AAA360 game in 2005? The actual problem is people take AAA and AA so seriously like the score immediately indicates game A is better than game B when that is not at all the case.

Limbo, Braid, Bastion, To the Moon etc.

I think I proved my point

I don't think it matters to the game itself how it is placed on your system. It's either good or it's bad. However, I will always be a proponent of something I can feel in my hands. That being said I have a few dozen games on my HD :)

Most of them,no.

No,they can't.

:/

I'm not sure if they are or not. I mean in real life I don't care if it's a downloadable game or not, I talk about them as if they are. Though I suppose Retail games have a bigger market I suppose, but downloadable games still count as games in my book.

Though apparently in SW it's different, but SW is stupid so it doesn't matter. Same reason why I consider PS All Stars and Sly 4 to be counted as exclusive to PS3 and Vita, and how I consider Witcher 2 and other PC-360 ports to be counted as exclusive to 360 and PC.

So yes, downloadble games count as part of a games library. SW will disagree of course, but SW is stupid, so who cares?

lol, it is pretty obvious that they are discredited because the ps3 dl games are not up to the standards that the 360 dl titles have set.

Because ON AVERAGE the downloadable games are held to lower standards/expectations, have significantly lower budgets, have more simplistic gameplay (not that this is necessarily bad) and usually are far shorter to complete. Of course there are exceptions, but on average that is what they are.

That doesn't mean there can't be downloadable games that truly outshine their full retail counterparts in terms of FUN factor (which is what it should be all about), but clearly 99% of these games are operating on a different plane in terms of what goes into them, and what players should expect. I think they are obviously reviewed accordingly, so it's not fair to compare a 8.0 rated downloadable game to a 8.0 full retail game, just like it wouldn't be fair to compare an 8.0 rated iphone app. They are obviously being held to different standards, so you can't compare them directly as if they are the same thing.

They wouldn't score that high if they cost $60. They are not equal to a full retail game in terms of content. A couple examples will not discredit the 1000s of arcade games. Also, it just opens a can of worms. Velocity was recently reviewed for the PS3. http://www.gamespot.com/velocity/reviews/velocity-review-6383169/. Believe me, this isn't the equivalent of a full retail game, and it isn't equivalent to an arcade game. PC games are reviewed based to standards. Handheld games are reviewed according to standards. Arcade, phone, and retail games also fall under their own standards when reviewing them. Can they be better? Sure, I'd rather play Trials than Gears 2...doesn't mean they are equal. senses_fail_06

They don't cost $60 though. The point is that they aren't as expensive in the first place.

I am 60+ hours into Clash of Heroes on XBLA and is defiantly one of the best games this generation

So, sure, in fact they can destroy 99% of retail boredoms that play it safe and have standard gameplay for the masses

I suspect next gen the best games will largly be XBLA ones

Because ON AVERAGE the downloadable games are held to lower standards/expectations, have significantly lower budgets, have more simplistic gameplay (not that this is necessarily bad) and usually are far shorter to complete. Of course there are exceptions, but on average that is what they are.

That doesn't mean there can't be downloadable games that truly outshine their full retail counterparts in terms of FUN factor (which is what it should be all about), but clearly 99% of these games are operating on a different plane in terms of what goes into them, and what players should expect. I think they are obviously reviewed accordingly, so it's not fair to compare a 8.0 rated downloadable game to a 8.0 full retail game, just like it wouldn't be fair to compare an 8.0 rated iphone app. They are obviously being held to different standards, so you can't compare them directly as if they are the same thing.

2Chalupas

I don't put different standards on games wether they are retail or not. If I enjoy a game, then I enjoy it. It's that simple. I don't care if it's download or not. I don't think most people do either.

Because ON AVERAGE the downloadable games are held to lower standards/expectations, have significantly lower budgets, have more simplistic gameplay (not that this is necessarily bad) and usually are far shorter to complete. Of course there are exceptions, but on average that is what they are.

That doesn't mean there can't be downloadable games that truly outshine their full retail counterparts in terms of FUN factor (which is what it should be all about), but clearly 99% of these games are operating on a different plane in terms of what goes into them, and what players should expect. I think they are obviously reviewed accordingly, so it's not fair to compare a 8.0 rated downloadable game to a 8.0 full retail game, just like it wouldn't be fair to compare an 8.0 rated iphone app. They are obviously being held to different standards, so you can't compare them directly as if they are the same thing.

2Chalupas

[QUOTE="senses_fail_06"]They wouldn't score that high if they cost $60. They are not equal to a full retail game in terms of content. A couple examples will not discredit the 1000s of arcade games. Also, it just opens a can of worms. Velocity was recently reviewed for the PS3. http://www.gamespot.com/velocity/reviews/velocity-review-6383169/. Believe me, this isn't the equivalent of a full retail game, and it isn't equivalent to an arcade game. PC games are reviewed based to standards. Handheld games are reviewed according to standards. Arcade, phone, and retail games also fall under their own standards when reviewing them. Can they be better? Sure, I'd rather play Trials than Gears 2...doesn't mean they are equal. ActicEdge

They don't cost $60 though. The point is that they aren't as expensive in the first place.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="senses_fail_06"]They wouldn't score that high if they cost $60. They are not equal to a full retail game in terms of content. A couple examples will not discredit the 1000s of arcade games. Also, it just opens a can of worms. Velocity was recently reviewed for the PS3. http://www.gamespot.com/velocity/reviews/velocity-review-6383169/. Believe me, this isn't the equivalent of a full retail game, and it isn't equivalent to an arcade game. PC games are reviewed based to standards. Handheld games are reviewed according to standards. Arcade, phone, and retail games also fall under their own standards when reviewing them. Can they be better? Sure, I'd rather play Trials than Gears 2...doesn't mean they are equal. senses_fail_06

They don't cost $60 though. The point is that they aren't as expensive in the first place.

Not equivalent in production values maybe but that doesn't mean they aren't equally if not better games.

[QUOTE="Gue1"]

well, what can we expect from someone that thinks the Wii is a better gaming console than the other 2?

Because to tell you the truth the answer is quite obvious.

ActicEdge

If the answer is quite obvious why don't you just say it?

I also have stated I like my Wii more than the PS3 or 360. I never said it was the better console. Its outclassed in most ways, just not the ways that matter to me.

downloadable games aren't of the same scale as a full fledged triple A game, so most dudebros doesn't care about them. And what do you do when you don't care about something? You either throw it away or you put in a place where it doesn't bother. Just as simple as that.

No matter how hard you try to find a more substantial meaning behind it all at the end this is just fanboys rambling and spinning in hopes of making a point get through.

Rocket Science

Not equivalent in production values maybe but that doesn't mean they aren't equally if not better games.

ActicEdge

I know why you made this thread, i bet you enjoyed a lot of those console downloadable games more than some retail ones. As to why they are discredited, you could ask the same question to people who think that 2D games are inferior to 3D games. Short answer is that their perspective has just ben influenced to react that way (ex. 3D high budget games will always be far more relevant than short, downloadable games.).

I think that you should just trust your value foremost, people seem to fail to do this and focus on what other people say foremost. Gaming is a personal experience, you shouldn't give a sh*t. Lower standards, etc., all of that is meaningless. Shadowmoses suprisingly nailed it, i'm shocked to see a post of his that i fully agree with.

[QUOTE="Technoweirdo"]

A good game money/quality-wise is a good game money/quality-wise.
However, factoring out the money, is *insert 'downloadable' game* just as good as *insert 'retail' game*?

This kind of thinking changes the definition of "AAA" et. al variants, causing the separation between the two.

Note: I use "downloadable" and "retail" rather loosely.

ActicEdge

By this logic, is a AAA PC game in 2012 = to a AAA360 game in 2005? The actual problem is people take AAA and AA so seriously like the score immediately indicates game A is better than game B when that is not at all the case.

Yes, different standards across systems, genres, and time further complicate the metagame, so we throw those out the window.
It's a concession made to avoid figuring out how high the bar is for each system and genre at any point in time.

However, the bar for 'retail' and 'downloadable' games can be perceived, hence the separation.

[QUOTE="2Chalupas"]

Because ON AVERAGE the downloadable games are held to lower standards/expectations, have significantly lower budgets, have more simplistic gameplay (not that this is necessarily bad) and usually are far shorter to complete. Of course there are exceptions, but on average that is what they are.

That doesn't mean there can't be downloadable games that truly outshine their full retail counterparts in terms of FUN factor (which is what it should be all about), but clearly 99% of these games are operating on a different plane in terms of what goes into them, and what players should expect. I think they are obviously reviewed accordingly, so it's not fair to compare a 8.0 rated downloadable game to a 8.0 full retail game, just like it wouldn't be fair to compare an 8.0 rated iphone app. They are obviously being held to different standards, so you can't compare them directly as if they are the same thing.

ShadowMoses900

I don't put different standards on games wether they are retail or not. If I enjoy a game, then I enjoy it. It's that simple. I don't care if it's download or not. I don't think most people do either.

Well I don't care either, and I don't even pay attention to the "metagame" nonsense or whatever it is here on systemwars.

But that is the obvious answer to the original question. If you are going to play this console comparison game using quantative scoring, you can't compare apples to oranges. You can compare retail vs retail and downloadable vs downloadable but you can't meld the two directly - at least not in terms of "scores".

[QUOTE="senses_fail_06"][QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

They don't cost $60 though. The point is that they aren't as expensive in the first place.

ActicEdge

Not equivalent in production values maybe but that doesn't mean they aren't equally if not better games.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

Not equivalent in production values maybe but that doesn't mean they aren't equally if not better games.

Lucianu

I know why you made this thread, i bet you enjoyed a lot of those console downloadable games more than some retail ones. As to why they are discredited, you could ask the same question to people who think that 2D games are inferior to 3D games. Short answer is that their perspective has just ben influenced to react that way (ex. 3D high budget games will always be far more relevant than short, downloadable games.).

I think that you should just trust your value foremost, people seem to fail to do this and focus on what other people say foremost. Gaming is a personal experience, you shouldn't give a sh*t. Lower standards, etc., all of that is meaningless. Shadowmoses suprisingly nailed it, i'm shocked to see a post of his that i fully agree with.

They were more a mix of PC and console games but yeah, I think its a shame quality is being dismissed due to lack of production value and "simple" gameplay mechanics. But yeah, I myself will continue to enjoy all games. Games like Castle Crashers, Bit Trip, World of Goo, Night Sky, Cave Story, Meat Boy etc are all great games worth recognizing.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="senses_fail_06"] Meaning they're not equivalent...senses_fail_06

Not equivalent in production values maybe but that doesn't mean they aren't equally if not better games.

Value and worth would be directly tied to content and gameplay etc etc. Its more like trying to create a distinction because the graphics aren't as good tbh.

Seeing as how a lot of these "huge budget 60$ retail games" are getting constantly outclassed and outperformed by these "budget indie games" I too wonder why they're not counted.

A game like Bastion may be only 15$ yet it has a lot more quality content in it than most of these 60$ big budget AAA blockbusters. Funny how that works.

Guess it's really too late this gen for it to matter.

does it really matter

[QUOTE="senses_fail_06"][QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

Not equivalent in production values maybe but that doesn't mean they aren't equally if not better games.

ActicEdge

Value and worth would be directly tied to content and gameplay etc etc. Its more like trying to create a distinction because the graphics aren't as good tbh.

I had more fun with Braid and Super Meat Boy than with Assassins Creed 1 and 2.
Had more fun with Bejeweled 3 than with Batman: AA.
And the same goes with handheld titles. I had more fun with Bowsers Inside Story than with Max Payne 3.
And mods. I had more fun with Fall From Heaven 2 than with Civ V.

I would totally be willing to defend downloadable. We may need an animal name for people who tend to prefer small games.

Downloadable games can outclass retail ones, sure. Very few retail games have the fun factor and content as Trials Evolution, for example.

It really isn't solely about production values. If two games (an arcade and a full retail) were released same day, same price then 95% of the time the winner would be the retail game. Your argument suggests that they aren't priced the same, so they don't have to be compared that way. Ok, then how can they be equals in the metagame? Should the iPhone games (aka PSMinis) be compared to a full budget xbox or wii games? I mean, by your logic, as long as they score the same....senses_fail_06

It actually is, objective value is absolutely proportional to how much effort it went into producing the game, ex. content, gameplay that has ben fine tuned to work, all the hours put in creating it, etc. Subjective value is a totally different thing, it's tied to your personal experience. Overall, since gaming is solely a personal experience, your value should matter the most.

But that would mean that the 360 actually has games and they dont.

Bastion. Best game released in 2011. No discredit from me, brother.

[QUOTE="senses_fail_06"]It really isn't solely about production values. If two games (an arcade and a full retail) were released same day, same price then 95% of the time the winner would be the retail game. Your argument suggests that they aren't priced the same, so they don't have to be compared that way. Ok, then how can they be equals in the metagame? Should the iPhone games (aka PSMinis) be compared to a full budget xbox or wii games? I mean, by your logic, as long as they score the same....Lucianu

It actually is, objective value is absolutely proportional to how much effort it went into producing the game, ex. content, gameplay that has ben fine tuned to work, all the hours put in creating it, etc. Subjective value is a totally different thing, it's tied to your personal experience. Overall, since gaming is solely a personal experience, your value should matter the most.

People would flip sh*t if a DL game won GOTY ... Is it possible?