@Chico86_basic Okay, I'll admit that if you're in a position where you can't rent, you might be screwed. That said, I'm not sure how common those places are now.
@Ayato_Kamina_1 Let's get something clear: I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong to be upset about ME3. Okay? That said, think about what you're saying here: the fact that a game is good makes it WORSE because of a "bad" 2-3 hour ending. This is the equivalent of a teacher seeing that you got 90% of the answers right on a test, but then deciding that because you missed ONE SPECIFIC QUESTION you don't deserve a passing grade. I don't care if the one question you missed is whether 2+2=4; if you got 90% of the other answers right, you don't give that person an F. And then you're saying that you'd rather see your student get a C then answer one specific question wrong on the test, even if they get all the other answers right. Granted, making games is quite different from passing a school test, but given the plethora of references on here to traditional school grades--by which they mean 76 is an unacceptable C--I don't see how my comparison is any less valid.
Now I'm sorry that the ending was so bad that it made you feel like all your effort was wasted. I know how it feels to be disappointed by a game. But what you're saying is that the only reason you played it was for freedom of choice, not for the rich universe or RPG elements or side quests or anything else, many of which take up just as much time as the "choices" do. In a sense, you're saying that because a game's story made a couple bad turns, the gameplay was complete crap as well. And yes, I understand that RPGs are supposed to be plot oriented, but then why have people spent so much time complaining about the lengthy cutscenes (i.e. STORY) in Japanese RPGs?
Again, if you were upset, I'm sorry to hear that. But I don't think it's fair to decide a 100 hour experience--or even a 30 hour one--is totally, utterly destroyed by a mere 2 hour stretch. You can't expect people to get 95% on their tests all the time. Unreasonable standards like those are a surefire way to convince people to just give up.
@MinerAvatar @kiramasaki Your school analogy does make some sense, but in a way, that's my whole beef with this thing. Everyone wants to state "this is the truth" based strictly on their opinions. Take a look at how Gamespot labels their review scores: 10 = perfect, 9 = superb, 8 = great, 7 = good, 6 = fair, and 5 = mediocre. Are we now going to say that Gamespot--the best example one could cite for "proof" that the game sucks--simultaneously labels its reviews incorrectly? We can't have it both ways.
My issue is, and in many ways has ALWAYS been, with the factual language and arrogant elitism that seems to permeate the comments on this site, which if they are indicative of the gaming world at large, make me sad for my subculture. If you find that the scores tend to be right, fine. But don't let that stop you from trying something that scores super low once in a while. I'm CONSTANTLY surprised at what kind of quality I can find at the "bottom of the barrel," and that doesn't make me a hindrance to the industry, nor does it mean I enjoy "average" games or "bad" ones because there is little to NO objectivity in the score a game receives, and therefore words like "bad" and "average" are not factual in this context. To say that I enjoy "average" games, whether intentional or not, is to say you are the authority on what "average" actually means, but none of us are.
This is actually why, for a long time now, I've tried to champion the idea that honest reviewers should refrain from phrases like "good" and "bad" to describe a game and instead use more subjective terms like "fun" and "boring." Because IMO--and I AM aware this is strictly MY view--"good" and "bad" are things that math teachers put at the top of papers where there is NO question whether you did well or not. In a subjective industry like ours, IMO there ARE no pure facts, only opinions.
Now let me be clear: I'm not saying this makes ZombiU good. In fact, to say that would be to betray the whole point of my post: that none of us are qualified to say what is "good" and what isn't. And it is because people have decided that they CAN tell what is "good" that any time a developer comes out and defends himself, he AUTOMATICALLY gets slapped with a label like "butthurt" or "blind" or anything else that suggests he is looking for an excuse to ignore criticism. Even in the TAMEST manner possible like in this story where he even ADMITS to feeling "disappointment" over the early reviews, not because he thought the reviews were nonsense, but because he thought he and his fellow co-workers had made some big mistakes. But instead of latching onto that, they simply latch onto the idea that he and his developers are now pleased with themselves for making a game that averaged out much higher and frame the whole thing as a black and white chessboard to vilify for the sake of vilifying. And I take DEEP issue with those who want to play absolutist games of "good" versus "evil" in real life. IMO it is intellectually lazy and even kind of cowardly; a way to avoid admitting fault if you make a mistake, similar to what they claim this guy is doing.
Anyway, I hope none of that sounded overly rude. I HAVE come across that way in some of the other comments I've posted here. Also apologize for the length, though I think we've had extensive convos like this before. :)
@Zeppelin1988 Thank you for stating concisely what every gamer should know at this point and apparently doesn't: try the game for yourself. I swear to you it's the most ridiculous thing that gamers continue to act like victims when they spend $60 on a game without trying it first. Whatever happened to rentals? You're able to afford a full $60 game but you can't afford $15 a month to join Gamefly? Or spend a few minutes trying the demo? If you paid $60 for a game and didn't enjoy it, it's YOUR fault for not trying it first.
Of course, none of this means ZombiU is a worthwhile game. I honestly don't know. But people shouldn't be deciding whether it's worth it or not because of what a couple of "trustworthy" people say on a "respected" website.
@Elite_Bushido @GreenReuben There aren't any "games for everyone." They don't exist. Some people will dislike certain games. Would we state that New Super Mario Bros U is a "game for everyone"? Even people who hate 2-D sidescrollers? I admit that's semantic, but it speaks to something.
Furthermore, are you aware that "games for everyone" could just as easily be labeled "games for no one in particular"? When you're trying to play to a broad audience, there's a strong tendency to push design in certain directions that will appeal more to the masses, which is something that gamers at large complain about a LOT. "Stop mainstreaming our games! Make them for us!" You can't have it both ways.
I'm not saying whether you should like ZombiU. That's your decision. Just think about what it actually means when we say a game is for "everyone."
@mrboone01 And it's nice to know that as time passes, gamers grow more and more intolerant of people failing in any capacity, frustrating the developers further and convincing them all that it's a waste of time to bother trying to please us.
Try looking at the average. 76 is NOT "mediocre." Don't believe me? Try reading the heading above scores on Gamespot. "Mediocre" doesn't show up until we reach the 5's. 76 gets the heading "Good." Since apparently "Good" is the new "Mediocre" in the gaming world, I can safely state that gamers have standards higher than any reasonable person should.
And here's an additional thought: actually play a game instead of judging it based on the company label. Don't wanna buy it? Use the magical tool known as RENTING beforehand. Problem solved.
@kiramasaki If you've decided that "76" is "average," then it's no wonder he's frustrated, as it indicates that anything less than a 9 is not worthy of any sort of praise.
Try a "mediocre" game once in a while, especially the ones that score 70-80, since these constitute "average." I think you'll be surprised to find out how fun "average" can be.
Ladies and gentlemen, we've found our ruler! The one who is qualified to say what is for some people and not for everyone, and toss out the games that don't "qualify" as either! Master, what should we play next?
Prove to me there are no good games that "aren't for everyone," and then show me irrefutable proof that no intelligent reviewers could reach that conclusion about either Wii U or ZombiU. Then come back here and make ridiculous statements like those.
Don't like me straw-manning your argument? Good. Cause that's exactly what you did to people who enjoyed the game.
cachinscythe's comments