Why certain people will defend a clearly bad game

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Thread topic "Why certain people will defend a clearly bad game"

Toxic Sniper:
...Maybe they just like it?

I have to admit Toxic, the timing of this thread made me laugh... right? (to everyone else, we've been having a disagreement about Metroid: Other M.) And no, answering the op's question I didn't pre-order Other M. I don't pre order anymore after waiting over a year after preordering Twilight Princess.

But yes, I'll defend a game I liked in the face of overwhelming dislike. Did it for a long time with Majora's Mask and Wind Waker. And now the tide has changed on their profiles. (And no Toxic, that isn't happening for OM, even I realize that.) Oh, and Toxic, If I've been too insulting or offensive I apologize. I get defensive when outnumbered and tend to lash out. One of the reasons I like the escapist is we are usually better than that here, and I should remember that.

Well, I like DA2 and Alpha Protocol, but I've seen that a decent amount of people have enjoyed them so I guess they don;t fit the OP's description of a clearly bad game.

This thread reminds me of this picture.

image

Too Human is just about the shittiest game I could ever think to play, but a lot of my friends love the hell out of it.

They just like things you don't like. Also, those are all fairly legitimate responses to a criticism of a game if they apply to what was said in the review.

I dunno, if I paid $50 for a game I think I would try really hard to trick myself into thinking it was a good game too.....Just like back then I was bought a PS2 early despite there being no good games out yet. Ah hindsight.

Does someone not have the right to defend something that they enjoy? Honestly, it's people that go 'REVIEWERS ARE GOSPEL' that piss me off more then people who defend what they like. Yes, as some have said, some are just being Fanboys who will defend the fuck out of anything with the name of the thing they are a Fanboy of. But then there are some that are genuinely defending something that THEY enjoyed. Maybe the arguments you listed aren't that great and are more the 'blind fanboy' type of defence, but by god does it annoy me that you can't defend something that a few people thought was shit.

I agree. I feel terrible when I've just wasted $60. Of course I'm more mature than some. Except maybe the purchasing a $60 pile of feces bit. That doesn't feel mature.

We're all guilty of it... most of us have some game in our collection that is simply ass, but it resonates with us in some way that makes it seem better to us. Maybe a nostalgia factor or a strong interest in the genre... good feelings in other words.

While not as widely panned as Survival Instinct, 2009's AVP was a pretty meh game... but I loved it.

Being objective about something you like is difficult since, by our very nature, we let a lot of shit slide if we derive pleasure or comfort from something. It DOES require deliberation and intent to overcome our predisposition with giving allowances to stuff we're fond of.

Most people don't have the patience for that. To be critical about something, while still derive pleasure from it, is a tenuous balance at best. Some folks can let flaws completely overshadow any genuine quality. Others can wade through the deepest chasms of shit and appreciate that flawed gem buried within. Very few people can wade through that shit and call it shit, while still admiring the gem. Likewise few people can acknowledge the flaws without degrading the game in their view too.

This is why you have some pretty... vicious responses to criticism. Some people genuinely can't handle the negative feedback. Others really can't see the diamond in the rough. This is why so many discussion about a games value, regardless of ratings, are boiling pots waiting to overflow.

The effect I'm talking about is quite easily seen in user reviews on any of the major aggregate sites*. For most people there is no gradient between good and bad... its a switch "Did you like it? Yes or No?" Maybe at a stretch "kinda/not really" too.

*Note: This isn't including review bombing. That is a different beast entirely.

This whole "They're just trying to justify their purchase!" bullshit needs to stop. Right now.

People just cannot seem to handle the idea that *GASP* someone enjoys something.

Also, I'm increasingly getting the feeling that there is (almost) no such thing as objectively bad game.
You say you're not talking about a game that can be good or bad depending on tastes, but that can apply to pretty much every game. Yes, there are exceptions, but still.

Sometimes just 1 aspect is enough for me to love a game.

Space Marine for instance. The combat was decent, the characters were ok, etc. However, the level of love and fanboyish understanding that went into the world makes me cream myself every time I pop it in. Just the one scene in the trenches were off on the horizon a skyscraper sized artillery piece is firing at the Ork hordes. Every shot creates a miniature earthquake that ripples across the war torn landscape. They just got everything I feel 40k is about. A lot of people didn't even care about the game. That ONE scene was enough for me to love it.

So maybe these people you're talking about feel the same way about The Walking Dead.

Always assume someone praises something because they like it. It's a weak, irresponsible, generalizing rationalization to say they just want to convince themselves they didn't waste money.

Oh and by the way, the thing about the bugs is perfectly valid. People can only speak from their own experiences. If you had bugs and they didn't and they praise the game, they're not wrong just because they didn't have the same problems as you.

Sir Thomas Sean Connery:
snip-a-dee-doo-dah, snip-a-dee-ay

I agree with just about everything you wrote. Personally, out of my collection of games, I have at least 3 games with a sub-7 rating on Metacritic, either user or critical. Of those 3, guess how many I am considering getting rid of, in order to get a new game? None. However, there are two games I am planning to trade in, both of which are highly acclaimed games. Do I think those games are bad? No. I just don't have fun with them. And to me, that is what games are about, having fun. I'd be lying if I said I don't consider reviews when making a purchase, since I have limited funds, but I'm not going to avoid a game I have a feeling I'll enjoy just because someone thinks the game is shit.

Oh, and I really enjoy Alpha Protocol, DA2, and Mass Effect 3, all of which get slammed by gamers. For every game that someone dislikes, there is usually someone who enjoyed it. Except Big Rigs. No one unironically likes that game.

InugamiTheHound:
I like Too Human and Alpha Protocol and both of those games are bad but yet I still had fun with those games.

Alpha Protocol isn't bad. If anything, judging by the reviews it's mediocre, but in the gaming community it's recognized as really underrated.

On topic: different people enjoy different things. Maybe they like some element of the game, element that works, so much, for them the flaws don't matter.

People are people and people are bias. That's about all there is to it.

I think saying they're ALL trying to justify their purchase is wrong. Probably a few of them think that way, but many others defend a "bad" game because they really liked it.

I think that, with the exception of game-breaking bugs, everything else about a game is subjective. Plot? Gameplay? Graphics? What you think is bad could be amazing for somebody else. So in these cases they do't really see anything wrong with the game in question.

Other people do see the "bad" aspects of the game but the "good" parts of it are so good (in their opinion) that it just doesn't matter. They're having fun, they're enjoying the game, and that's all that matters.

Finally, some people do see the "bad" aspects of the game and realize that overall the game is trash, but they just don't care. Guilty pleasures and all.

Th3Ch33s3Cak3:
I enjoyed Two Worlds
Also, I hope this dosn't devolve into another thread of people hating and questioning other peoples opinions.

I am currently hating and questioning your opinion.

First possibility: Guilty pleasure. They know it's all terrible but that is precisely why people play it.

Second possibility: (Faults aside)the game gives something specific the person hasn't seen done(or done as well/done quite the same way). Mirrors Edge could be a candidate for this I think. (Not saying I think it's a bad game, just that I've noticed a lot of people seem to think so.)

Third possibility: The parts they do like are enough to overshadow whatever else they don't necessarily like.
This sort of goes hand in hand with the second possibility.

And then of course there's good old fashioned different perspectives/opinions that cannot be quantified or examined in any tangible way.

Example, I love Too Human and found the combat very fun and entertaining, even novel, and never had any really issue with the camera.
A LOT of people have said just the opposite.

Fun fact: I also enjoyed Might and Magic 9. (it was my first MM game)
The enjoyment I got out of it aside, even I can still say that game is put together terribly.
In my own insignificant opinion, I think the only thing that can probably turn everyone away from a game are technical issues that are so severe that playing the game is an actual impossibility. Anything else is mostly subjective.

I've been looking into this for awhile now, and what I've found is it's either those people are very tolerable or they only need a certain part of the game to work well to be enjoyable. And of course there are those who invest themselves into the game so much that they can not accept any criticism of it. Also, there are people that believe nothing can be bad, but I haven't met anyone like that yet.

It's really just a matter of opinions. Some people may found joy in this game that neither me or you can find, it can be a guilty pleasure, or something legitimately appealing to them.
What annoys me however, is how people, for example, on an IGN review:
X reviewer puts several legit points about the game, and one of them is the graphics...

Y user ignores EVERYTHING, and goes for: ''they only care for visuals!''
Or OUT OF NO WHERE go ''They only like CoD this review is bad'' *which really, when you think about it, shouldn't this game get reviews then, since it's published by Activision?*

Johnny Novgorod:
I would contest that there're no "clearly bad games" to begin with, just games you like or you don't like.

Um, Custer's Revenge? ET (Atari 2600)?

There are some truly, objectively bad games. But they are few and far between.

because some people just like playing with shit.
i can mention a ton of shitty shitty games that i love with all of my heart that my friends are most likly never going to stop bullying me for playing.

The game is a BADLY made game. I agree with that completely. People may or may not enjoy the game because of that. They might defend it because they still like it, but if anyone says the game was made "well"...they're dead wrong.

I don't see why this is worth a discussion.
I think its great if you are defending a game you bought. Remember when you were younger and you could only get one game a month, or even three months or even 6 months (depending on how awesome your parents were)? Of course you defended the game you bought, or sometimes, you just enjoyed it because it was just a game that you now finally own. I defended Spongebob Squarepants: Supersponge back then... Now, I could never find enjoyment in it again.

But isn't that what its all about? All that matter is how much enjoyment you get out of a game! The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct might just be a rushed, over-marketed licensed game that was made to grab everyone's wallets without delivering any solid gameplay, but that's only if you look at it from a business perspective.

Aww, how I wish we were all kids again and just 'rate' video games in terms of fun and not delve into these deep analyses where one single, small flaw can result in an uproar in the gaming community.

Sorry, I am ranting too much, but I seriously urge you to look at the review of Resident Evil 2 on Gamespot (make sure its the original ps1 review), and then compare it to any review of any other modern game. The way everyone reviews games has become far too strict and... Soulless?

fezgod:

madwarper:

fezgod:
"MY COPY of the game doesn't have all those bugs,"
(Granted, most of these opinions come from youtube comments so they're validity is in question)

The other two comments may have been subjective opinions... But, this last one seems pretty objective.

If the reviewer complains about how buggy they observed the game to be, it's just as valid as when someone says that they have yet to encounter such bugs in their copy.

Personally, I've played New Vegas dozens of times, and during every one of the character creation sections, the doctor's neck remained intact.
I know that other people have encountered bugs where it dislocates and just rolls around his shoulders, I've seen the videos, but that doesn't change the fact that it never happened to me.

Funny that you should mention New Vegas because I've only had one major crash in New Vegas but beyond that, I've never encountered any serious visual/gameplay bugs. But when I put the game in my friend's xbox, it wouldn't even load.

I've played New Vegas on 360 and PS3, and I've found that the bugs/freezes only show up on PS3, though both have funky level geometry in places.

Johnny Novgorod:
I would contest that there're no "clearly bad games" to begin with, just games you like or you don't like.

I disagree with this sentiment whole-heartedly. It seems to imply that poor game design, bad ideas, and/or just plain laziness on the part of the developer(s) is/are excuseable because there are no, "Clearly bad games."

Yes, some games are clearly bad, and some people who defend them... Well... Let's just leave it at that.

For instance, I will point out a stereotypical game that is the very definition of bad; Big Rigs Racing (or whatever the official title is). To say that it is not, "Clearly bad," is to excuse the shoddy game design, the fact that it was released unfinished, and that it is pretty much unplayable.

My point? A line must be drawn somewhere, and the attitude of, "Well, it must be good for someone," or, "It's not bad, just something different," should not be adopted when it can be shown that a game was poorly conceived or cannot be played as intended. The second gamers stop being critical of a developer's mistakes is when they start releasing garbage (And, well, it's happening now). We have a responsibility to maintain the quality of games by being judgemental and providing feedback when necessary. People that blindly defend bad games don't really help anyone. They just do it to make themselves feel better. When it comes to reviews and criticism, they only give developers a false sense of security; even though the developer may have released a sub-part product.

So yes, there are bad games out there, like The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct, and I don't see those that blindly defend them as doing any service to anyone but themselves. It's annoying.

fezgod:
And can you think of other games that were clearly bad but you'll still see people defending them?

Disclaimer: I'm not talking about a game that can be good or bad, depending on your tastes, or a game that you personally think is overrated. I'm talking about games that are almost universally considered shitty but some people are still inexplicably defending.

I'll explain to you why I still defend Duke Nukem Forever. But first, the disclaimer part kinda defeats the point. What is "universally considered shitty"? You mean if the majority of people say it is bad? But that is personal taste or thinking it is overrated (or just jumping on the hate bandwagon). People say the Dirge of Cerberus sucked, but I loved the game and saw nothing wrong with it. On the other hand, everyone praise Dragon Age: Origins while I found the characters to be bland as hell, the world, story, and well, everything was also bland and pretty boring. The "combat" was just clicking and waiting for the enemy to die, then clicking on the next. So, I call it a bad game, but still, personal taste. Mechanic wise, NecroVisioN seem really clunky and the AI were horrible, but the game was so much fun it didn't matter. You could consider it to be a "bad" game, but when it was way more fun than a "good" game (DA:O), how can it really be that bad?

Now, as far as Duke Nukem Forever goes, it wasn't that bad of a game. It played fine, and all the mechanics were fine, from what I saw playing the demo, game, and DLC. Multiplayer servers had a ton of lag issues, but most people didn't even try the multiplayer. I used to work with a guy who said it sucked. I asked him why and he said because there was a two weapon limit. I then asked if he played it and he said no. Conversation there was over and anything he said about the quality of the game held no weight. How can I trust his opinion on the game when he never played it, and was just jumping on the "DNF sux!!11 you can only have 2 gunz!!!1111" bandwagon, like most other people who constantly trashed it when it came out. Other people said it was offensive. Well, yeah, Duke Nukem is pretty much the South Park of video games, it is supposed to be offensive and attack most popular things in the media/pop culture. TotalBiscuit complained that it was "too scripted" and other people complained about the weapon limit because "old school shooters didn't have weapon limits". Old school shooters were scripted, and people complain about that. People also said "after 13 years this game should be a lot better". They weren't working on it straight for 14 years. A quick google search for it's development could tell you that.

It hit the point where people, most of which never played it, were just looking for a reason to hate it. If you play a game and dislike it, fine, but don't go around talking shit on a game you've never played. That is why I made a PSN account in another country, just to try the Heavy Rain demo, and see if the game was as bad and boring as it looked (and it was). I'm sure just watching a video of Goldeneye would make you think the game was horrible in every way, but anyone who has played it knows how fun it is.

Stupid people.

Just like a lot of people genuinely think The Expendables, Transformers and Battleship are ok movies, some people just don't have the intellectual integrity to get their experienced ruined by flaws like horrible writing, bad mechanics or failed logic.

/elitism

tsb247:

Johnny Novgorod:
I would contest that there're no "clearly bad games" to begin with, just games you like or you don't like.

I disagree with this sentiment whole-heartedly. It seems to imply that poor game design, bad ideas, and/or just plain laziness on the part of the developer(s) is/are excuseable because there are no, "Clearly bad games."

Yes, some games are clearly bad, and some people who defend them... Well... Let's just leave it at that.

For instance, I will point out a stereotypical game that is the very definition of bad; Big Rigs Racing (or whatever the official title is). To say that it is not, "Clearly bad," is to excuse the shoddy game design, the fact that it was released unfinished, and that it is pretty much unplayable.

My point? A line must be drawn somewhere, and the attitude of, "Well, it must be good for someone," or, "It's not bad, just something different," should not be adopted when it can be shown that a game was poorly conceived or cannot be played as intended. The second gamers stop being critical of a developer's mistakes is when they start releasing garbage (And, well, it's happening now). We have a responsibility to maintain the quality of games by being judgemental and providing feedback when necessary. People that blindly defend bad games don't really help anyone. They just do it to make themselves feel better. When it comes to reviews and criticism, they only give developers a false sense of security; even though the developer may have released a sub-part product.

So yes, there are bad games out there, like The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct, and I don't see those that blindly defend them as doing any service to anyone but themselves. It's annoying.

This is pretty much the point I was trying to make, albeit a bit clearer.
Also, I like your point on how developers are given a false sense of security. Game companies can release any type of garbage and as long as they can snag a few sales (which is easily achieved by manipulating a fanbase) then they still profit - especially since they probably didn't even spend a lot of money on the first place on the game. Then they can release another piece of shit game to get more money because they know that some people who bought the first game will defend it because they spent money on it and will want to feel as though they were justified in purchasing it so they won't feel as though they wasted money. When people defend a defective product, they can inadvertently generate a few more sales because they make it more confusing for consumers to determine whether or not a product is defective - which eventually leads to more sales of the video game company.

When a game is mediocre, that can either mean that the company a) ran out of time/money b) they didn't give two shits about the actual product because they know they'll make their money back.
If a game falls into the first category (again Fallout: New Vegas comes to mind) its still a good game that just has limitations due to the aforementioned problems, so it may still be worth a purchase.
If a game falls into the second category, it's an insult to the entire industry and to gamers in general.

lithium.jelly:

Johnny Novgorod:
I would contest that there're no "clearly bad games" to begin with, just games you like or you don't like.

Um, Custer's Revenge? ET (Atari 2600)?

There are some truly, objectively bad games. But they are few and far between.

I seem to recall it being controversial because of its racist depiction of Native Americans, so it was morally and ethically bad, sure, but was the game bad per se? By the looks of it, it seems really hard and boring, but so were most Atari games back then.

That's the thing with subjectivity with respect to art. Some people love things that other people hate. Don't you have a few odd tastes that other people simply can't understand? I actually kinda like Battlefield Earth. It's like a really good B movie to me. But people could just as easily say "How can you defend an obviously bad movie?".

There will also always be the people who are just trying to stir up trouble and the people who defend it without having played it (just like the more common occurance of people who attack things without having experienced it).

But that "obviously" bad line is a stacked way to ask the question.

Well, I haven't seen many people defend that ET game that was buried out in the desert. Clearly people aren't picking their bad games to defend as well as they should be.

I like a lot of games that others hate. Haters gonna hate. Defenders gonna... defend I guess.

tsb247:

Johnny Novgorod:
I would contest that there're no "clearly bad games" to begin with, just games you like or you don't like.

I disagree with this sentiment whole-heartedly. It seems to imply that poor game design, bad ideas, and/or just plain laziness on the part of the developer(s) is/are excuseable because there are no, "Clearly bad games."

Can you clarify me what comes under poor game design and bad ideas? I'm not sure if you mean issues like glitches and bugs, which I do agree make an objectively bad game, or thematic ideas which I think do have a lot of subjectivity to them.

OT: I do think that there are subjective and objective points about games, and a lot of criticism does seem to mix the two up. You might create the most beautiful, well written game in the world, but if it won't load past the opening cinematic then that is a bad thing. Similarly if you create a stock shooter that doesn't really have great ambitions to advance gaming but does everything it sets out to do in a high quality manner then you might not like it, but it doesn't mean someone else is wrong for liking it.

Fiz_The_Toaster:
Some people just like enjoying a train wreck.

I would equate it to a bad movie, but there are obviously major differences between the two. However, the premise is still there that people will play something just to see how bad it is and they might even enjoy it. Hell, I've meet people that enjoy Sonic 06 because of how shitty it is, and will defend it to a point, but will say it's still bad.

So yeah, train wrecks man.

I agree with this... if it weren't for the fact that games are $50-$60.
I mean, I for one plan on picking the Walking Dead SI up at $5 just to see if I can beat the game using only Gatorade nut punches, and I won't tell people that buying games at full price just because of how hilariously awful it is is wrong. I just think that it's a little careless considering many people don't have the luxury to throw around money like that. I wouldn't pay someone to reenact a train wreck, I'm not that sociopathic.

ikoian:

Fiz_The_Toaster:
Some people just like enjoying a train wreck.

I would equate it to a bad movie, but there are obviously major differences between the two. However, the premise is still there that people will play something just to see how bad it is and they might even enjoy it. Hell, I've meet people that enjoy Sonic 06 because of how shitty it is, and will defend it to a point, but will say it's still bad.

So yeah, train wrecks man.

I agree with this... if it weren't for the fact that games are $50-$60.
I mean, I for one plan on picking the Walking Dead SI up at $5 just to see if I can beat the game using only Gatorade nut punches, and I won't tell people that buying games at full price just because of how hilariously awful it is is wrong. I just think that it's a little careless considering many people don't have the luxury to throw around money like that. I wouldn't pay someone to reenact a train wreck, I'm not that sociopathic.

There are people that do throw money around with reckless abandonment though. I'm not saying what they're doing is wrong or anything, just that some people just don't care. I mean, I will borrow or rent a game if I hear how shit-tastic it is and see for myself, but not at $60.

Train wrecks are a powerful and wondrous thing to behold, so powerful, in fact, that some people don't mind spending money on it. Logic be damned!

Zantos:

Can you clarify me what comes under poor game design and bad ideas? I'm not sure if you mean issues like glitches and bugs, which I do agree make an objectively bad game, or thematic ideas which I think do have a lot of subjectivity to them.

I'm not speaking in terms of thematic ideas or storytelling in and of themselves (although they can play a part), but instead I am referring to bugs, glitches, not delivering on promised features, rushed development, poor visual design, and poor level design, and sloppy optimization. That, along with the subjective elements like what could be called a poor story, poor voice acting, etc all go into making a game demonstrably bad.

tsb247:

Zantos:

Can you clarify me what comes under poor game design and bad ideas? I'm not sure if you mean issues like glitches and bugs, which I do agree make an objectively bad game, or thematic ideas which I think do have a lot of subjectivity to them.

I'm not speaking in terms of thematic ideas or storytelling in and of themselves (although they can play a part), but instead I am referring to bugs, glitches, not delivering on promised features, rushed development, poor visual design, and poor level design, and sloppy optimization. That, along with the subjective elements like what could be called a poor story, poor voice acting, etc all go into making a game demonstrably bad.

But even in some of those cases i had great fun with games. The Gothic series was always full of bugs/glitches but still the best western RPG i've ever played. Though one should know, that besides Gothic 1+2 no Gothic game exists in my universe.

On another note would be Two Worlds and Two World Two. I probably have more played time in each of them than in Skyrim. It's buggy, it was completly broken and you counldn't find any balance no matter how hard you looked.. but i loved it.
And if only to exploit the living shit out of that game.

There's really just one measurement i have for games: enjoyment
Graphics, bugs, bad writing. All that and everything else you can think off does not bother me, as long as the game is fun.

So jeah, an objectivley bad game would be a game which nobody in the world likes. Since that's not the case, there's no "bad game". Just a bunch of games the vast majority doesnt approve of - but who cares.

fezgod:

This is pretty much the point I was trying to make, albeit a bit clearer.
Also, I like your point on how developers are given a false sense of security. Game companies can release any type of garbage and as long as they can snag a few sales (which is easily achieved by manipulating a fanbase) then they still profit - especially since they probably didn't even spend a lot of money on the first place on the game. Then they can release another piece of shit game to get more money because they know that some people who bought the first game will defend it because they spent money on it and will want to feel as though they were justified in purchasing it so they won't feel as though they wasted money. When people defend a defective product, they can inadvertently generate a few more sales because they make it more confusing for consumers to determine whether or not a product is defective - which eventually leads to more sales of the video game company.

When a game is mediocre, that can either mean that the company a) ran out of time/money b) they didn't give two shits about the actual product because they know they'll make their money back.
If a game falls into the first category (again Fallout: New Vegas comes to mind) its still a good game that just has limitations due to the aforementioned problems, so it may still be worth a purchase.
If a game falls into the second category, it's an insult to the entire industry and to gamers in general.

Yep, you and I are on the same page. It really gets to me how groups can defend a game to the death even though it can be shown to be complete garbage. I used the case of The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct. Many die-hard fans of the series seem to love it. However, that does not make it a good game, and that certainly doesn't make it worth the price tag. The fact that there is a group of people defending a game that is complete garbage by design only reinforces the developers and their methods, in this case, releasing a crappy game.

The same can be said for The War Z as well. Many die-hard fans will defend it to the death despite the disaster that its launch was. Sure, it's being fixed up as time goes on, but it's still far from what was promised, and it looks like a three to five year old game already.

In the end, it is always best to approach games from a critical point of view. If we find faults, the least we can do it admit to them and share them with the community in hopes the those who created the game will pay attention. However, to gloss over the flaws of a game and put a game that can be demonstrated to be horrible upon a pedastal and worshipping it as though it were a blockbuster hit doesn't do anyone any favors. That just tells the developers that they can get away with releasing utter crap, and stupid people will fool themselves into believe that it is great.

I'll pick on The Walking Dead yet again since the OP mentioned it:

This is worth a watch. It's an example of the kind of work that we shouldn't tolerate and shouldn't defend.

Gamers don't deserve crap like this!

fezgod:

I feel as though the reason why people will defend a really bad game because they preordered it and are now defending their purchase to justify to themselves that they didn't just waste 60$.

Didn't purchase TWD Survival Instinct but I did rent it. Obviously the game is bad but there is something alluring about it, I genuinely enjoyed playing it at times and can see how someone could trick themselves into the extra step of thinking it is good. There is a big difference between "good" and "quality" though. If you have fun with a game then the game is good, at least for you. If that same game is poorly written, mechanically inept, bad looking, and structured improperly then it isn't quality. You can avoid a lot of the games bugs if you play the game as intended, so players didn't see them and wrongly assumed they weren't there just because they weren't effected. Lastly opinions can and always will differ, people can choose to defend whatever they want, I hope the people who purchased TWD truly do enjoy it and I can only pray that they felt the same way when I was foolish enough to jump into the Colonial Marine hype.

In closing, After pre-ordering Aliens, after witnessing the fall of SimCity and now seeing yet another quick cash-in from an otherwise respectable property, I vow to never pre-order another game and not purchase one until I've seen a reputable review.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here