The cancer that is killing gaming: the source

Took me YEARS to figure out it was UP and Down. YEARS

The bosses in nights I had trouble with were........ well at first all of them but now it's still that cat boss with the firecracker mice.

also YAY post 7000

 

I can't believe that bastard said this.
He doesn't deserve to be a reviewer.

 

One guy didn't like the game. It's not the end of the world. Nights isn't for him, nor is it trying to cater to a new audience. It is for those who are curious, and those who have fond memories of the game. You either like it, or you don't like it. The fact is, gaming has changed in some ways.

Nights was a product of its time as much as Call of Duty is a product of its time. Believe it or not, people do enjoy Call of Duty, and they do enjoy Angry Bird, and there isn't anything wrong with that. If a game is about having fun, and they aren't having fun, shouting at them means they won't go out of the comfort zone again. That is not a new phenomenon. I knew plenty of people growing up that would play Quake-style games and only Quake-style games, and would never, in a million years, touch a platformer. That's life.

 

I gonna so buy NIGHTS when it comes out on x360 and for the main question I think that the problem with nowadays games is that only things important to the debs(most of them) is gfx and sound fx, the whole gameplay as such is mainly ignored to all means and just like "we do a sequel to this and that, put new gfx into it and voila" and nobody will notice stuff

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FpigqfcvlM

^^^ I'm sure many of you have seen this episode of Sequelitis but it sums up my thoughts nicely.

 

I only read reviews from Destructoid and Joystiq. Sometimes Eurogamer. Don't even bother reading any others.

PS: Just compare Resident Evil 6 reviews from those two sites with "mainstream" ones like IGN.

 

Gamespot gave it a 4.5.

 

One guy gave it a 4.5, likely. If there is proof of money bribes still ongoing, that is something to be up in arms about, but if someone wants to give a game a low or a high score, that is their opinion.

 

That guy is a reviewer for a supposedly serious tech site, not a shithead tween who calls the ipad a console...

So he has to be objective, he can't criticize a famous classic game for lacking the kind of dumbed-down gameplay most games have these days

 

He can criticize the game for whatever the heck he wants to criticize it for. It's one guy. Maybe it is the people on these forums who are out of touch with what most people want, not the other way around.

 

x

 

You're wrong. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdQtysrvKVM

 

Well, I'm glad they had 80s gameplay instead of mid-90s.

 

I actually did say to the Verge reviewer that maybe it wasn't his fault and the good review check didn't clear.

He didn't deny there wasn't a good review check.

Also this

 

I'm sure we all remember this fiasco.

 

You can't look at old stuff without context, else any movie from before CGI looks like shit, every classic car drives like shit, and every old game looks and plays like shit

The guy clearly didnt criticize Nights for some design shortcomings but for lacking the kind of crap games have these days.

Don't you see how stupid that is? is like watching 300 and complaining that the spartans don't have guns...

That's OPTIONAL, you don't have to go through the training course if you don't want to

Some old games also had optional tutorials, but these days most games shove it into the actual levels, even the dumbest details are made obvious for the most obtuse of casuals out there

 

If your the kind of person that only plays a game to see the ending than I can see that. But, Nights is meant to be a score-attack. Learning your way through the levels to get the biggest links and controlling Nights is quite a challenge.
Just like if you just want to "beat" Sega Rally it'll take less that an hour. But trying the get your lap time under 50 seconds in the Desert Track will take hours upon hours.

Seems like people don't crave the feeling of beating/figuring out a particularly hard boss or section, but settle for the carrot-on-a-stick design thats prevalent these days. That why I love the Demons/Dark Souls games. They just drop you into the world as say "Figure it out fucker". I for one am more than happy to oblige.

 

Please. Games dont' have to be HARD or Non-linear to be FUN.

That doesn't mean people should rate games down because they don't hold your hand. But it doesn't mean games should be rated down for not being UBER CHALLENGING or SO LINEAR It's JUST A CORRIDOR.

Games are ENTERTAINMENT, and the point of entertainment is to be ENTERTAINED. And that does NOT mean it has to be in ONE exact way. There are different mindsets and approaches to playing different types of games, not all have to be the same. And seriously, if I was stuck with just one mindset that I had to use to judge ALL games with. I'd want to kill myself.

Besides, who gives a fuck about what reviewers say? The modern so called "Professional" game review publications have already proved their hypocrisy time and time and time again. (CoD and all EA sports games are enough proof without even having to really dig deep into why it's all a bunch of bullshit.)

The only reasons to care, are because of all the tools out there who listen to reviews to decide whether to buy a game(Thus influences sales) AND that Developers more often than not just listen to all the negative nancies instead of the people who actually like and/or praise their game.

 

x

 

Normally I don't agree with Shadowlayer on stuff but his comment above in 100% correct. Some of the best games out there are the ones that only take a short time to complete and have next to no modes of play but you still coming back to them because they are fun. How many times have people gone back to Daytona USA even though it looks complete shit to the likes of Forza 4. It's all about fun, not what a game has or hasn't got. People these days expect too much.