Why Isn't There A GAME Defense Force?

I may not be able to think of a lot of movies that need defending (yes, I do watch a fair amount of movies) but I can CERTAINLY think of a lot of games that get a lot of crap shoveled onto them rather unfairly.

Take Fable 3 for example. Did you know that the development time that was given for that game was about 1-2 years? Look it up. Hardly any time to make even a 7.0 rated AAA game at all much less a 9.0 or a 10.0 and you can thank Microsoft for that one.

And that's just one game. Banjo Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts, Serious Sam 3, etc. all look like they need some defense. This IS a gaming-oriented website, no? Let's do this.

#1: Bumping is against the rules. Please don't do that; nobody likes a bumper.

#2: My guess is that a "bad" movie usually has a period for it to take it's lumps before it gets the prestige of defending. All three movies Jim has defended so far (Waterworld in 1995; Blair Witch 2 in 2000; Alien 3 in 1992) are all older movies. Maybe he'll change the format but I find that cult classics need time to simmer before they are allowed to become cult classics.

HOWEVER, this does not translate well into gaming because...well....games just don't age very gracefully. There is always going to be the exception to that but those are just that: exceptions. If the very best games are not immune to this (Half-Life 2 gets the "That's it?" argument all the time), then "bad" games are going to get hit that much harder by it.

tippy2k2:
#1: Bumping is against the rules. Please don't do that; nobody likes a bumper.

#2: My guess is that a "bad" movie usually has a period for it to take it's lumps before it gets the prestige of defending. All three movies Jim has defended so far (Waterworld in 1995; Blair Witch 2 in 2000; Alien 3 in 1992) are all older movies. Maybe he'll change the format but I find that cult classics need time to simmer before they are allowed to become cult classics.

HOWEVER, this does not translate well into gaming because...well....games just don't age very gracefully. There is always going to be the exception to that but those are just that: exceptions. If the very best games are not immune to this (Half-Life 2 gets the "That's it?" argument all the time), then "bad" games are going to get hit that much harder by it.

#1: No, it's not. Even further, after 5 min., this thread went more than 5 pages down the list. These forums are way too fast NOT to bump.

#2: The whole purpose of the Game Defense Force is to defend games that have gotten a bad rap, no matter how long it's been since release. They will be compared against the games that have been released along side it.

Actually, bumping isn't allowed. If you add some content to the thread, sure. But just saying "bump" is low content.

Anyway, why do we need a game defence force? It's the marketing team's fault, or the dev's fault that a game is badly received. We're not hired to protect them. And your fable 3 example is a pretty bad one. Short development time isn't an excuse for shitty games, they should've taken more time.

Arnoxthe1:
The whole purpose of the Game Defense Force is to defend games that have gotten a bad rap, no matter how long it's been since release. They will be compared against the games that have been released along side it.

That still doesn't work that well in my eyes.

Older games just don't age well. You could go ahead and argue that "Well at the time it was great" but that doesn't make it great now. The movie defense force works well because even though those movies are older, a great movie back in the day doesn't fall behind in technology and all of a sudden become a bad movie. This is not the case with games.

Those games you listed? Now this is unscientific but here's the Metacritic "average score" from journalists:

Fable III: 80
Bajoe Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts: 79
Serious Sam 3: 72

All three of these scores are respectable scores (don't let the internet fan boys blind you; a game does not need a 10 to be considered good). None of these are "bad" enough to warrant the defense level like the movies Jim picked.

Let's look at those scores, shall we?

Blair Witch 2: 15
Alien 3: Weird...it's not listed. Next best estimate is Alien Resurrection at 63
Waterworld: 56

Those are some huge differences. If you can kick out some better examples, maybe I could see this working but most bad games are just that...bad. Gaming is too young and the technology moves too quickly to allow cult classics to develop.

If you pay me and I will cheerfully defend any game to within an inch of its life.

Zhukov:
If you pay me and I will cheerfully defend any game to within an inch of its life.

I'll give you, let's see *rummages through pockets* some gum, a single match stick and a paperclip for Big Rigs. Do we have a deal?

DoPo:

Zhukov:
If you pay me and I will cheerfully defend any game to within an inch of its life.

I'll give you, let's see *rummages through pockets* some gum, a single match stick and a paperclip for Big Rigs. Do we have a deal?

Depends, has the match been used yet?

tippy2k2:

Arnoxthe1:
The whole purpose of the Game Defense Force is to defend games that have gotten a bad rap, no matter how long it's been since release. They will be compared against the games that have been released along side it.

That still doesn't work that well in my eyes.

Older games just don't age well. You could go ahead and argue that "Well at the time it was great" but that doesn't make it great now. The movie defense force works well because even though those movies are older, a great movie back in the day doesn't fall behind in technology and all of a sudden become a bad movie. This is not the case with games.

Those games you listed? Now this is unscientific but here's the Metacritic "average score" from journalists:

Fable III: 80
Bajoe Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts: 79
Serious Sam 3: 72

All three of these scores are respectable scores (don't let the internet fan boys blind you; a game does not need a 10 to be considered good). None of these are "bad" enough to warrant the defense level like the movies Jim picked.

Let's look at those scores, shall we?

Blair Witch 2: 15
Alien 3: Weird...it's not listed. Next best estimate is Alien Resurrection at 63
Waterworld: 56

Those are some huge differences. If you can kick out some better examples, maybe I could see this working but most bad games are just that...bad. Gaming is too young and the technology moves too quickly to allow cult classics to develop.

Game scores can't really be compared to movie scores. Too many reviewers use a high school-esque grading system (100 is perfect, 90 is great, 80 is good, 70 is ehhh, 60 is lousy, and anything below that is garbage.) A game getting an 80 is decent to good depending on who you ask, while a movie getting four out of five stars is pretty high praise. (Incidentally, I think that's the system we should be using.)

Arnoxthe1:
I may not be able to think of a lot of movies that need defending (yes, I do watch a fair amount of movies) but I can CERTAINLY think of a lot of games that get a lot of crap shoveled onto them rather unfairly.

Take Fable 3 for example. Did you know that the development time that was given for that game was about 1-2 years? Look it up. Hardly any time to make even a 7.0 rated AAA game at all much less a 9.0 or a 10.0 and you can thank Microsoft for that one.

And that's just one game. Banjo Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts, Serious Sam 3, etc. all look like they need some defense. This IS a gaming-oriented website, no? Let's do this.

I... don't think you understand the purpose of Movie Defense Force. The show argues, "You all say this is horrible, but it's really not," while you're asking for a show that argues, "This is bad, but it's someone else's fault."

How about no.

The gaming industry is a big boy now. It can take care of itself. It doesn't need people defending its missteps. In fact, such behavior does more harm than good, as it sends the message that we'll take whatever crap they try to shove down our throats. Developers and publishers need to be called out for such things, as it creates opportunities for them to (hopefully) learn from their mistakes and create better products in the future.

bananafishtoday:

Game scores can't really be compared to movie scores. Too many reviewers use a high school-esque grading system (80 is good, 70 is ehhh, 60 is lousy, and anything below that is garbage.) A game getting an 80 is decent to good depending on who you ask, while a movie getting four out of five stars is pretty high praise. (Incidentally, I think that's the system we should be using.)

I agree that critiquing movies and games are different and this was just..."soft evidence" for lack of a better term to make my point: If he wants to do a game defense force, you have to choose games that are universally panned as being crap like Jim's three movies (the only reason I used the scores was to illustrate the acceptance that those three movies suck versus the games scores showing that they are either alright or good).

The games he chose as his examples are not seen as bad games (they might not be seen as the best games but very few will call those games absolute shit; compare that to the three movies and you'll see plenty of people call them that). I don't think games lend themselves well to this type of series, which is why I don't think a series like this would work.

If he (or anyone really) can pump out a few games that are universally panned AND hold up to today's standards, I'd consider changing my stance. A 70+ score is not a universally panned game. But until someone gives up some actual examples, this series would have nowhere to start, let alone have enough games to make a series.

Sorry, I should have rephrased. I meant that the GDF will defend any game that's WORTH defending. The game must be treated at least somewhat unfairly. Also, this is not supposed to take the blame off of the developer/publisher's shoulders, this would simply be to recognize the good traits such games have to offer that have been ignored.

Now Jim does have some good reasons to defend these movies, I will give you that. However, the critics opinion of a game is far from universal. If you bring up BK:N&B or Fable 3 to an average group of gamers, don't deny it, chances are they will probably pan it as well.

As to Fable 3, how is unfair deadlines the developers fault? Especially when they're given lofty requirements for the time that they have? I actually think they did a pretty good job considering what they had to work with.

General Twinkletoes:
Actually, bumping isn't allowed. If you add some content to the thread, sure. But just saying "bump" is low content.

I've looked at the code of conduct and as far as low content goes, they seem to be addressing people other than the OP. Now is this grabbing at straws? Perhaps but either way, let the mods mod me how they see fit. I feel fully justified in bumping this topic what with how quickly it went to the absolute bottom of the index.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked