stratogustav
Supreme Overlord
Warrior with Bandana
Posts: 7,624
|
Post by stratogustav on Aug 21, 2017 1:15:35 GMT
stratogustav - Mate, I didn't say anywhere that every game should be like PDS. I literally said (and even used italics for emphasis) that I like both PDS and EDF, just for different reasons. I stated those in the second part of my post. I know you didn't say that, but you were comparing. One thing leads to the other. It basically entails that only games with those characteristics can be all good. That's why I brought up the Daytona USA example because that exactly addresses and responds to what you were saying in those comparisons.
|
|
Dan E. Kool
Walking Trash Can Robot
Now With Extra Pulp!
Posts: 3,325
|
Post by Dan E. Kool on Aug 21, 2017 7:46:44 GMT
So... We have no standards whatsoever to compare our video games to. The only thing that decides whether or not a game is "good" is if stratogustav likes it. Conversely, if stratogustav doesn't like it, it's "bad." Therefore, there can never be a game that's "so bad it's good" because, if it were "bad," stratogustav wouldn't like it, so it could not possibly be "good." Similarly, if someone were to say they enjoy a game that stratogustav likes BECAUSE it's "so bad it's good," we would know that that person is wrong. The game couldn't possibly be described that way because stratogustav likes it, ergo everything about the game is exclusively "good." Sounds reasonable. /sarcasm
|
|
stratogustav
Supreme Overlord
Warrior with Bandana
Posts: 7,624
|
Post by stratogustav on Aug 21, 2017 9:30:57 GMT
So... We have no standards whatsoever to compare our video games to. The only thing that decides whether or not a game is "good" is if stratogustav likes it. Conversely, if stratogustav doesn't like it, it's "bad." Therefore, there can never be a game that's "so bad it's good" because, if it were "bad," stratogustav wouldn't like it, so it could not possibly be "good." Similarly, if someone were to say they enjoy a game that stratogustav likes BECAUSE it's "so bad it's good," we would know that that person is wrong. The game couldn't possibly be described that way because stratogustav likes it, ergo everything about the game is exclusively "good." Sounds reasonable. /sarcasm That actually sounds reasonable, but no. Of course there are standards. If a game puts you to sleep in simple words that means the game is bad, but that requires more explanation. If the game is designed purposefully to be something it is not, meaning it fails at achieving what it tries to do, then it is bad. That said, if a game fails like that but still manages to be fun by pure coincidence, then those are the bad but good games. If a game succeeds at doing what it tries to do and it is fun, that means the game is good. Very easy stuff. For example a musuo game can be excellent if it achieves what it tries to do and people that like the genre enjoy it. Now, there are games that are not for everyone. For example I don't like RPGs, but a lot of people do, and think they are fun. So if one of those games suceeds at achieving what it tries to do; it is still good, it is just not for me. Just because it is not my kind of game I'm not going to say it's bad. I'm sure Final Fantasy VII would put me to sleep because it is not my kind of game, but it achieves what it tries to do and a lot of people love it. The game is therefore clearly good. It would be ridiculous for me to say it is not just because I'm not into those kind of games. It doesn't matter what kind of game is. For example Tetris is a 10 out of 10 perfect game. The storyline is weak, the acting is non existing, very unrealistic, with zero grasp of actual reality, and the graphics look kind of like squares. Yet it is one of the best games ever made. Again, very easy stuff, very straight forward, not complicated at all.
|
|
Cervantes
Off-Brand Transformable Robot
A former Incompetent Evil Commander (XP: 2423)
Posts: 2,860
|
Post by Cervantes on Aug 21, 2017 13:43:17 GMT
stratogustav - The problem with your definition is that you either consider a game good or bad (simple stuff, as you say). In my case, I can usually say "hey, this game's combat is awesome, but the story sucks", or "this game's animation is beautiful, but sadly the main gameplay is boring", or "it's very addictive, but repetitive", or "the music is great, but it's the only good thing". I can judge its various good or bad elements separately, to the point that I can say "EDF's animation and performance suck, the gameplay is repetitive, the AI sucks, but as it's supposed to be a parody of bad games and movies, they work in this game: it's intentionally so bad that it's good." This is the main difference between what we are saying. To you, either the game is good or not. To us, some elements of the game might be good and others might be not, and a game might even be good despite having bad parts (EDF), or be bad despite having good parts (CoD and other AAA games). Your Tetris example is not relevant at all. I never said a game has to have a storyline or acting; what I'm saying is that if it had a storyline, then we would judge it; if it if it had actors acting, we would also judge this. We would still consider the game good while also saying "holy crap, this game would be even better without a stupid storyline and actors", or we might say "hey, the bad and unnecessary acting is funny so it makes Tetris even better" - for an example of a puzzle game which is even better because of the storyline, graphics and acting, look at Catherine. But as we are judging what is there, one of the things I usually say about Tetris is "the music is very catchy, the graphics are appropriatelly abstract and simple to not distract you from the gameplay, the rules are very well designed, the game runs well". If it had bad music, it would still be a good game, but then I would have to play it on mute. If it had bad performance (as the mobile version released by Ubisoft), it might ruin the gameplay as it would be hard to control the pieces, so I would say "the main gameplay is good, but it's sadly ruined because I can't play it properly". In fact, that's why Ubisoft's version is regarded as a terrible version of Tetris: because one of its elements is bad (framerate). So some elements are important to some games: Tetris doesn't need a storyline because its a puzzle, but it needs good controls and performance. Without those elements, it becomes a bad game. See what I mean by good or bad elements?
|
|
stratogustav
Supreme Overlord
Warrior with Bandana
Posts: 7,624
|
Post by stratogustav on Aug 21, 2017 14:15:41 GMT
Cervantes we are going in circles here. Specially with EDF. For example let's talk about repetitive gameplay, in some genres the gameplay is supposed to be repetitive because the genre requires it, like beat 'em ups or in Omega Force alike musuo games after you get down the game mechanics. That AI also needs to get adjusted to meet those requirements. In those instances repetitive gameplay is not a bad thing, it is a good thing because that is what the game is supposed to do. Think of Tetris, you can't get more repetitive than that, yet that's what makes it good. The same goes with storylines, if the game doesn't want to be serious or realistic you want a storyline that is not serious or realistic that goes according to that universe. That is the proper storyline and having that kind of story for that kind of game is what makes that storyline good. Artstyles are subjective. For me the artstyle on EDF is pretty good and spot on. It is the perfect balance between Mazinger Z and something like Ultraman. It is good because it is appropriate for that game. Some people don't like the artstyle on The Legend Of Zelda Breath Of The Wild for example. I personally think it is beautiful, it almost looks as drawing art to the point that it makes you forget is rendered. So yeah, some of these things can be subjective to an extend, but we cannot deny the reality that if a particular design choice works for that particular game, it means it is good by default. When it comes to frame drops that's a legit issue. A lot of that has to do with compatibility, how the game is ported and what kind of of system you are using. For example EDF 2025 and EDF 4.1 are the same game, but you can't expect the same performance from a PS3 than what you would expect from a PS4. That is why the PS4 version is so much smoother. There is no much devs can do about that, other than don't release it on a platform that can poorly handle it. In other cases it is definitely the devs fault because of bad programming, hence glitchy games like Tony Hawk Pro Skater 5 or Assassin's Creed games freezing on people. That is legitimately bad. These differences are important because those are the things that matter when it comes to finding an outstanding game and separating it from other crap that fails at achieving what it tries to do.
|
|
Cervantes
Off-Brand Transformable Robot
A former Incompetent Evil Commander (XP: 2423)
Posts: 2,860
|
Post by Cervantes on Aug 21, 2017 14:36:13 GMT
I do get your point, I'll just make a last comment: When it comes to frame drops that's a legit issue. A lot of that has to do with compatibility, how the game is ported and what kind of of system you are using. For example EDF 2025 and EDF 4.1 are the same game, but you can't expect the same performance from a PS3 than what you would expect from a PS4. That is why the PS4 version is so much smoother. There is no much devs can do about that, other than don't release it on a platform that can poorly handle it. Here's the thing: in EDF, the framerate drops ARE INTENTIONAL. So much that they proudly show these framerate drops ON THEIR VERY TRAILERS. There's a lot a developer can do to not have framerate drops (Hyrule Warriors runs on a f****** New 3DS with a very smooth framerate), but EDF developers choose to keep that "legit issue". Why? Because it's funny as hell when the game struggles to keep up with its own awesomeness. If you agree that framerate drops are a "legit issue" (your words), then it's usually a bad thing, right? A bad thing that EDF does on purpose (as my previous NG2 example). That's my entire point with "EDF does bad things on purpose". It's very proud of its terrible framerate. How many games can say that? God, I love EDF. That's my last comment on this topic, as I don't have anything else to contribute. Now to talk about other useless stuff!
|
|
stratogustav
Supreme Overlord
Warrior with Bandana
Posts: 7,624
|
Post by stratogustav on Aug 21, 2017 14:43:50 GMT
Here's the thing: in EDF, the framerate drops ARE INTENTIONAL. So much that they proudly show these framerate drops ON THEIR VERY TRAILERS. There's a lot a developer can do to not have framerate drops If that is true, and the frame drops are intentional on the PS3 version, then that means those frame drops are good by default because they serve the purpose they are intended for. See, one more reason that shows the game is perfect overall. Nothing bad in it. The game is amazing indeed.
|
|
Dan E. Kool
Walking Trash Can Robot
Now With Extra Pulp!
Posts: 3,325
|
Post by Dan E. Kool on Aug 21, 2017 15:27:21 GMT
If that is true, and the frame drops are intentional on the PS3 version, then that means those frame drops are good by default because they serve the purpose they are intended for. I actually laughed out loud. Who would've thought that a comment that tries so hard to refute the concept of Camp could actually be... So bad it's good. Made this whole thread worthwhile, thanks!
|
|
Cervantes
Off-Brand Transformable Robot
A former Incompetent Evil Commander (XP: 2423)
Posts: 2,860
|
Post by Cervantes on Aug 21, 2017 16:29:44 GMT
I'll brake my promise just to say that I would find it hilariously odd if someone said "EDF has a good framerate of 5 fps." It would be more logical to say "The framerate is terrible but fits the game", but heh, whatever.
|
|
stratogustav
Supreme Overlord
Warrior with Bandana
Posts: 7,624
|
Post by stratogustav on Aug 21, 2017 16:38:11 GMT
I actually laughed out loud. Who would've thought that a comment that tries so hard to refute the concept of Camp could actually be... So bad it's good. Made this whole thread worthwhile, thanks! Something tells me the concept finally clicked for you. It took that much to explain it. It is good because I was already giving up on you. I knew you were better than that. Which by the way makes the comment good. So maybe we are all not all there yet. I hope that's not the case. Cervantes only in theory. If it was unintended then it is just bad. You said it was on purpose, but who knows.
|
|
Dan E. Kool
Walking Trash Can Robot
Now With Extra Pulp!
Posts: 3,325
|
Post by Dan E. Kool on Aug 21, 2017 17:13:46 GMT
Something tells me the concept finally clicked for you. It took that much to explain it. It is good because I was already giving up on you. I knew you were better than that. Which by the way makes the comment good. So maybe we are all not all there yet. I hope that's not the case. Bruh, I gave up on you like two pages back. But I've had fun and I hope someone reading this got something out of it, too. At the very least, we got all of Cervantes' great comments, so that's something. I do understand, though. I understand that you live in a kind of post-camp world where things that are good because of how bad they are, somehow erase their obvious flaws and become completely, 100% undeniably good, purely from the power of your enjoyment. That sounds... Pretty lame, actually. I like to describe my experiences in more expressive terms than just "GOOD." and "BAD." But to each his own.
|
|
stratogustav
Supreme Overlord
Warrior with Bandana
Posts: 7,624
|
Post by stratogustav on Aug 21, 2017 17:57:06 GMT
Dan E. Kool I see it is useless to make the point across. It is a shame because that's a symptom of a bigger problem on the whole industry. There would be a time when kids will think The Last Of Us is objectively superior to Ms. Pac-Man. Just think how vastly retarded that idea is. Why they would think like that? Because they have been brainwashed to stop appreciating things as they natural are. In no way shape or form something like The Last Of Us would ever be superior to Pac-Man, Frogger, or Breakout. Those were truly creative masterpieces that are really hard to match no matter how much technology you try to do it with.
|
|
Dan E. Kool
Walking Trash Can Robot
Now With Extra Pulp!
Posts: 3,325
|
Post by Dan E. Kool on Aug 21, 2017 18:46:16 GMT
In no way shape or form something like The Last Of Us would ever be superior to Pac-Man, Frogger, or Breakout. Those were truly creative masterpieces that are really hard to match no matter how much technology you try to do it with. We all agree that different things can be good for different reasons, stratogustav. What we disagree on is that sometimes, things that we know are bad can be enjoyed because of their bad qualities. Enjoying those bad qualities doesn't mean that they're good. Most of us can admit that something can be bad, but still fun. You insist that if that thing is fun, it's impossible for it to be bad at all. That is our divide. This thread isn't about different genres of games. The original question was, how do you make a game with bad qualities while still making it fun to play. It is, I believe, a question that's impossible for you to answer because you refuse to acknowledge that those two things (undeniably bad qualities in a good game) can coexist. You instead deny that those qualities were ever bad at all, be it wooden voice acting, incoherent plots, or even drops in framerate. You prefer to look at the big picture, I guess. If you like a game, it's good, regardless of the parts. That's fine, I'm glad for you. Whatever. But that kind of mindset can't explain or understand something being "So bad, it's good" - the subject of our thread.
|
|
stratogustav
Supreme Overlord
Warrior with Bandana
Posts: 7,624
|
Post by stratogustav on Aug 21, 2017 19:52:58 GMT
You insist that if that thing is fun, it's impossible for it to be bad at all. Not at all. I mentioned many times that there are many games that are bad but good. I'll repeat it again. Those are the games that failed to accomplish what they intended to accomplish, but somehow end up to be fun. That is the closest way to be a little objective on this. If we were relying on things just at face value it would all be left to opinions and nothing else.
|
|
Dan E. Kool
Walking Trash Can Robot
Now With Extra Pulp!
Posts: 3,325
|
Post by Dan E. Kool on Aug 21, 2017 20:39:02 GMT
Those are the games that failed to accomplish what they intended to accomplish, but somehow end up to be fun. YES. I agree with this statement 100%. So you must agree, then, that there are two ways to achieve this goal: -Either by accidental failure for accidental fun OR -By intentional failure for intentional fun. Correct?
|
|