Games you hate, yet everyone else cherishes.

[Ebon]

Guys... Aren't we getting a little off-topic? The thread is flooding with debates about why others' opinions are wrong.

Look at the title of this topic. "Games you hate, that everyone else cherishes." If you can't handle the fact that somebody doesn't like a game that you're a big fan of, then this is not the topic for you to be.

 

[OM3GA-Z3RO]

Well if you hate a certain game that others cherish they need to have a real reason why they hate it to back it up and that is what everyone is compiling on one another, doesn't seem to be off topic to me, like I despise FF8 due to many reasons that I can list:

Squall is a sulky brat that thinks the world is against him thus the reason why he closes himself up from everyone else.

The Sorceress concept was good especially when a Garden VS another Garden also the missions that you get in them but those missions quickly turned into one main thing which seemed to keep stretching and streching.

The theme turned from modern to like super futuristic and it leaves you to like: "WTF is going on did we time travel?" I understand the concept of more advance countries but when heading to Esther was ridiculous.

Compared to the previous FF games and FF9's world maps, FF8 had the most empty World Map throughout the game, I understand the Cetra Region was supposed to be a forgotten continent but goddammit there is only like 5 towns and 2 other towns that holds no significance to the story (They are just FILLERS!)

The Draw system was time consuming and ******ed.

At the end of disc 2, if you have equipped the right spells on you, you are too OP the enemy bosses just tickle you.

Near the end of Disc 3 when you just step into Esther, the developers mashed everything into one almost like they ran out of budget and needed to finish the game thus making it looked like it was rushed.

I can give more but I am pretty sure you get what I am getting at some people are just fan girling this game. Although I am also guilty I fan girl FF7 but I have my reasons to.

 

[Tai_MT]

I've seen "Hardcore Fans" of Final Fantasy 7 try to explain to me how those games/movies make any sort of sense.  I don't think they can do it any more than the people who made the game could do it.

I didn't used to really care that Final Fantasy 7 existed and that it had fans.  I always just thought, "This just isn't a game for me.  I can't stand to play it, so I'll just never finish it."  Then, we had the invention of Final Fantasy 13.  Another game I didn't really enjoy (who did?), but managed to play a significant chunk of.  These same people who loved Final Fantasy 7 and its plot were now complaining that the plot for Final Fantasy 13 didn't make any sense.

I couldn't help but laugh and think "hypocrisy in action!".

I know that my issues with Final Fantasy 7 stem more from my own personal bias than any sort of real criticism...  But, wowie are the people who play Final Fantasy games (myself included!) a strange bunch of people.  I guess the difference between the nonsense story of FF7 and FF13 is that the characters in FF7 are more relatable so the story is more well-written.

It is what it is, I guess.  But hey, if you want to try to take a stab at explaining the plot of Final Fantasy 7 to me, go right ahead.

 

[awesomerhys]

@hian

Even still, if someone thinks a game is bad, they absolutely have a right to criticise it. This knee jerk reaction you talk about in regards to characters and story isn't a misplaced reaction. It simply means the game doesn't click with them. Pretty much me with every Final Fantasy after VI (excluding IX and XIV), I don't like them because I think the characters are shallow and the stories rife with contrivances.

The fact is, other people who disagree will always try to tell me, and others who share my opinion, that we're wrong. My biggest irritation isn't the games themselves, strangely enough, it's that other many fans of the franchise can't stand it when we voice our opinion. For me, this thread was a good opportunity to share this in a mature environment, hopefully free of fanboyisms and forced opinions. Not naming names, but it's since devolved into "wow you really don't get it, do you? Here's why you're wrong..."

This is, above everything else, a matter of opinions. As with my FFVIII points, you countered one of them very well. I still take issue with that part of the story (we never actually see anyone healing Squall, it just jumps straight to the next scene), but you presented a side of the argument that is very debatable. I've never bought into the "Squall's Dead" theory though, simply because it makes the rest of the game completely pointless.

It's good that we're having a legitimate debate, though. More than I can say for a lot of the arguments in this thread.  Speaking of which, it really has gotten off topic. 

 

[OM3GA-Z3RO]

I've seen "Hardcore Fans" of Final Fantasy 7 try to explain to me how those games/movies make any sort of sense.  I don't think they can do it any more than the people who made the game could do it.

I didn't used to really care that Final Fantasy 7 existed and that it had fans.  I always just thought, "This just isn't a game for me.  I can't stand to play it, so I'll just never finish it."  Then, we had the invention of Final Fantasy 13.  Another game I didn't really enjoy (who did?), but managed to play a significant chunk of.  These same people who loved Final Fantasy 7 and its plot were now complaining that the plot for Final Fantasy 13 didn't make any sense.

I couldn't help but laugh and think "hypocrisy in action!".

I know that my issues with Final Fantasy 7 stem more from my own personal bias than any sort of real criticism...  But, wowie are the people who play Final Fantasy games (myself included!) a strange bunch of people.  I guess the difference between the nonsense story of FF7 and FF13 is that the characters in FF7 are more relatable so the story is more well-written.

It is what it is, I guess.  But hey, if you want to try to take a stab at explaining the plot of Final Fantasy 7 to me, go right ahead.

Hehe challenge accepted, expect a PM in a few days

 

[Touchfuzzy]

http://forums.rpgmakerweb.com/index.php?/topic/25629-tai-mt-final-fantasy-vii-what-is-still-confusing-you/

I just made a whole new topic for the "FFVII is so confusing and even its fans can't make sense of it" thing, because I can totally make sense of it, if someone wants to ask me questions.

 

[captainproton]

I honestly want to slap all the parents who buy GTA for their kids at my store. (Day job in electronics retail.) And all those people who are obsessed with Call of Shooty.

There are a few games out there which I think could be way better, but I still like. KH is one. A lot of people groan over the disney stuff, but I honestly think it's the FF side of the equation which messes things up. When I try to understand the story, it makes me go crosseyed. "Sora becomes a heartless, and roxas is his nody but he doesn't remember because namine changed his memory but then sora is put to sleep and riku becomes evil, but then stefano tries to take over pine valley with a weather machine but zirconia and her evil twin blow up the fitness center..." I think I lapsed into days of our lives near the end, but there you go.

 

[Amrod]

I loved Suikoden 4. Even though everyone says its the weakest of the Suikodens.

Maybe its because that was the first one I played. Either way. I was into the whole pirate thing at the time and the game entertained the crap out of me.

@The Final Fantasy 7 Convo. I loved 7. May not have been the best in my opinion. But its way better than all the ones released recently.

 

[Ultim]

Here's my list,the most hated games.

-Watch Dogs (What the heck ?! I thought we will have the best game ever and we got trash)

-Call Of Duty (all of 'em)

-Sims 3 Xbox 360 (Crappy controls and lame graphics)

-All MMORPGs

 

[Tai_MT]

Dark Souls:  A game in which 90% of its difficulty is derived from really poor controls.  I went in hoping for a legit challenge because it's kind of rare to have "difficult but fun" games.  Boy, was I annoyed that none of my controls actually worked as advertised and the tutorial actually got some of the controls wrong.

 

[OM3GA-Z3RO]

I agree, I hate dark souls, they say it is the new generation of new extreme challenging games but what I see is a poorly unbalanced design of a game, there is a difference in making a game challenging while it is truly challenging and a game that is simply unbalanced and half baked in game controls and survivability.

 

[hian]

@hian


Even still, if someone thinks a game is bad, they absolutely have a right to criticise it.

Never said that they didn't. I was pointing out that confusing an emotional set-back you have due to something that you personally dislike, and then confusing that with quality issues is objectively wrong.


The statement "I don't like chocolate ice-cream", and "chocolate ice-cream is a bad flavor" are quite different. The first is an opinion, the second is an objectively false statement, because you don't measure the taste of ice-cream with terms like "good" or "bad".


Similarly, there is a very large difference between not liking a character, setting, plot, narrative etc. and from any of these being of poor quality.


People who can't separate these two, really aren't worth listening to.

This knee jerk reaction you talk about in regards to characters and story isn't a misplaced reaction. It simply means the game doesn't click with them. Pretty much me with every Final Fantasy after VI (excluding IX and XIV), I don't like them because I think the characters are shallow and the stories rife with contrivances.

It's a misplaced reaction in terms of basis for criticism that is supposed to say something beyond what you feel about something.


It's fine to emotionally feel repelled by something. It's ridiculous to assume that your emotional reaction is equatable with standards of quality.


Now, it is quite possible that there are perfectly valid reasons underlying your distaste for something. However, psychology teaches us that it's usually the other way around.


It's not necessarily so that the characters are shallow for instance, it's that your sub-consciousness rebels against some aspects of the characters based on how you've been conditioned by past experiences in your life, and you then rationalize that by focusing on what you can explain away, for instance, as being shallow.


This is very apparent when you have huge populations of people playing the exact same games and making completely different opinions on the nature of the content.


I personally find that FF characters have grown more and more human with the passing of time(in general, there are ups and downs of course). For instance, I personally found the cast of FFVII much better realized, more fleshed out, and more human than any characters from any of the previous games. But again, that's probably because they were relate-able to me at that given time.

The fact is, other people who disagree will always try to tell me, and others who share my opinion, that we're wrong. My biggest irritation isn't the games themselves, strangely enough, it's that other many fans of the franchise can't stand it when we voice our opinion. For me, this thread was a good opportunity to share this in a mature environment, hopefully free of fanboyisms and forced opinions. Not naming names, but it's since devolved into "wow you really don't get it, do you? Here's why you're wrong..."

But, here is the thing, which I tried to make clear in my post - whenever you voice your opinion on the nature of a narrative, which you don't phrase as boiling down to emotional responses, you too are essentially saying that everyone else is wrong.


If you say FFwhatever character is shallow, that is a statement that directly contradicts those who don't consider that to be the case. You might not have leveled that as a response to anyone in particular but that really doesn't matter.


A character can't be both shallow, and not shallow at the same time.


What a character can be though, is likeable and unlikable at the same time, because people have different criteria for what they like in people, and we tend to compare the characters we see to our experiences of human beings.


It's for instance impossible for me to see Barrett as being a "shallow stereotype", because I have several friends who act more or less exactly like Barrett. So, knowing that he resembles actual human beings I know, it would be senseless to write him off as a character.


Shadow from FF6 on the other hand is a problem, because I've never actually seen any human being remotely close to being like Shadow.


If you reserve the right to make a statement about a character that is specific beyond the point of more basic in terms of emotions, then you need to be prepared to handle replies from people who experience the exact opposite.

It's good that we're having a legitimate debate, though. More than I can say for a lot of the arguments in this thread.  Speaking of which, it really has gotten off topic.

Well, it's technically topic related though. We're just meta-debating the topic =P


In either case, I will now add two more games to my list -


The Last of Us,


Watch Dogs,


and


GTA5

 

[Tai_MT]

So then here's my question...

How do you determine when a game is bad if someone can just say at any point in time that it's just a "personal opinion"?

I think you're trying to confuse the subject and muddy the waters.  Saying "I don't like X" is an opinion.  Saying "X is bad because" lends it more to whether it's right or wrong.  If a person can provide reasons beyond personal emotion (which most human beings do), then you actually have to debate those merits.  However, if you're going to dismiss those reasons as "personal opinion", then my friend you are simply denying someone their legitimate reasons for disliking/hating a game based on your own biased opinion of it.

I mean, how do you determine if a game is good or bad?  Call of Duty sells millions of units every time a new game comes around.  It breaks records.  But, a lot of people say it's bad.  Well, sales would point to the contrary.  Anyone who disagrees with "Call of Duty is awesome" and or "Call of Duty is the best game ever made" could be considered people simply voicing their own opinions because CoD touched them in a bad place somewhere and emotionally scarred them.

You see how slippery this slope is that you're trying to walk?

 

[Galenmereth]

There are no bad games, only bad players. And no, that's not me being derp: You can find pleasure in any game, no matter how broken others perceive it to be. You can find any game a steaming pile of poo, even if everyone you know absolutely adores it.

The very discussion is subjective. Dark Souls is one of the best games I have ever played. And I've played many games, many that I also love that are lauded as almost "perfect" (Ocarina of Time, Mario 64, Yoshi's Island, etc etc). Dark Souls has--in my experience--the most rewarding combat mechanics in any game of its kind, ever. It's 100% skill. You can beat anything in the game with pure skill: stats just make it easier. It takes some getting used to because most games are never 100% skill. Dying, failing, and retrying is an integral part of Dark Souls. It's not like many other games where failing means you played the game wrong: in Dark Souls, dying means you sucked, and have to learn from that to improve. And you will if you stick with it. Parrying and dodging is 100% reproducable in all fights if you know what to look for in the enemy's patterns. But you don't know that the first time. Or the first ten. That's learning. Dark Souls expects you to die and learn. And do it again and again, until you go from fearing that knight with the cape, to kicking his ass with a smirk.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

It all depends on what you personally consider bad or good since it will always be based on your own biases (and not just in games but a lot of other things, like movies for example)...

 

[Harmill]

I think the quality of something is determined by the mass consumers, and it's something that generally takes form over time. When something is brand new and has never been done before, it can take a while for the mass consumers to analyze this new product and decide if its worth it or not. The criteria that decide whether something is quality is going to be different for every group of product. In games, the criteria that make an FPS a quality game can be different from the set of criteria that make an RPG a quality game - and yet some criteria will be shared.

I wasn't around when video games were first being produced, but it would make sense that the games that people gravitated towards - the games that were of good quality - were fun. I mean, Pong is such a simple game that there isn't as much criteria set for that game as there would be for a modern game. As games evolve and become more complex, more and more criteria get introduced. Pong has no story. The quality of its story doesn't exist because there's no story for the consumer to even consider. Then the first Dragon Quest comes out. The Legend of Zelda, Final Fantasy, Super Mario Bros, etc, and games start having different degrees of stories. People judge whether the story matters in the game - whether the story affects the overall quality of the game. Over time, it is the mass consumer that's decided that the story is an important quality of the RPG, while not very important in a Mario game.

Once a genre becomes established, so does the criteria that determines its quality. No game is going to be liked by everyone. I think it's natural, then, that something that the mass consumers can generally agree to be fun, is a quality game. The people that don't agree with the majority are certainly allowed to say that they don't like the game, but when the mass do like the game, I think it's fair to say that the game was a quality game that some just didn't like.

I also believe that for someone to judge a game's quality, they need to know how to assess the criteria for the subject. There are so many different genres of games because so many different people have a different way of having fun. What makes an RPG fun is different from what makes a Racing game fun. If someone simply does not have fun playing Racing games, are they fit to assess the criteria that defines the quality of a Racing game? How can you determine what makes Mario Kart a higher quality racing game than Crash Nitro Kart if you don't play racing games? I personally didn't like the battle system in Xenogears. Is that enough for me to say that the game was of bad quality? I've played enough RPGs that I see the other criteria for Xenogears. It's story. It's characters. It's music. The more RPGs you play, the more experienced you become with the genre, and you start to understand what makes an RPG fun, and what detracts from the overall experience. As more and more RPGs get released, and more and more consumers play RPGs, the criteria for what determines  the quality of an RPG are born. Those who do not have fun playing RPGs to begin with, need to at least play an RPG (or two, or three) before they can understand what it is about that genre they don't like. I haven't played enough FPS games to be able to explain why Halo might be better received than Time Splitters. Sure, I had more fun playing Time Splitters 2 than any Halo game I played, but apparently the mass consumer has decided that Halo is of superior quality. My opinion of the two games is separate from its quality.

To make an analogy to books and quality of writing, the more you read, and the more you write, the better you can judge the quality of a written piece of work. If you hardly ever read books, and don't have any ambition to be a writer, and then decide to read a classic piece of literature like The Hobbit or Pride and Prejudice, how can you analyze those books and measure their quality? Eragon is a book series that is commonly looked down upon as extremely derivative and not very well written. Young readers, or readers new to the genre, can still find joy reading the Eragon books, but I have a strong feeling that as years go by, and those youths grow older and become more exposed to good literature, and become more aware of what makes good prose and storytelling, that they'll look back on Eragon, and wonder how they ever enjoyed that book at all.

Anyways, when I read the topic title, I translated it to "Games you hate but are of high quality" because in my mind, if everyone (in this context: the majority) cherishes something, that something is of high quality. If everyone cherishes something that you don't like, its good practice to analyze why the majority like that something you hate so much.

This is how I see the difference between forming an opinion about something, and assessing something's quality.Does this make sense? Do people disagree with this concept?

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

I do disagree to some point, mainly since those criteria are just set-up by people too anyways... So it's like the average of people's biases... And depending on how you came up with it, it can be both a really good balanced criteria or one that is more focused on a certain thing...

if it's the "accepted" quality of a game, all of us can only get to a consensus if we all judge from a specific set of things without letting our personal biases get in the way... else it will just be an opinion

but then again, how many people can actually do that? especially when the criteria is just made from the biases of their pioneers

 

[Ghaleon]

I was forced to play it once, but one game everyone raves about as being awsome I thought was the dumbest thing I've played...Goldeneye for n64, I just didn't get it.

Bear in mind I played multiplayer only but still.

 

[Harmill]

The criteria HAS to be set up by people - we are the ones calling stuff "good" and "bad" - who else is going to establish such criteria? So yes, something that is of high quality is something that the majority of people believe the product serves its purpose.

What is the purpose of any game? To have fun. How do you have fun in an RPG? How do you have fun in a Platformer? Once again, the majority will weigh in and decide why an RPG can be fun to play, what makes an RPG fun to play, etc. I do not know what it should mean for extreme niche titles. If a game appeals to an overwhelming minority of consumers, should it instantly be labelled as of bad quality? After all, most players won't enjoy that type of game - but did most of the consumer base even play the game? With that, it wouldn't be fair to say that the niche game is bad quality...but this is poking holes in something when I take my own words too literally. So to be more specific, a game is made towards a target audience. If that target audience is a niche, the quality of that game is decided on the majority of that target audience. So while the majority of consumers may not have fun with that type of game, that game could still be considered of high quality if it serves its purpose in "being fun for its target audience". I'm pretty sure that I'm coming up with examples even now that threaten that argument.

It's a tricky subject to convey in words, and I realize that this is still just "my own opinion on what composes an opinion and how something's quality is judged". This is my lens, and there may be holes and flaws in specific things I may have said, but I'll stop now before I start debating with myself. I welcome people to tell me if there's something seriously wrong with the concept as a whole.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

If there's anything wrong in that, maybe it's the fact that we are humans... Else, there's really no right or wrong in an opinion