FEAR 3 is shit

[Arem]

...
..
.

We're a community of elite individuals. Do you expect us to dismiss a game based on assumptions and previous experience alone? Perhaps you would find the Bethesda forum more to your liking. They make a lot of assumptions there.

What the majority of newfags fail to realise is that we are justified in our hatred. Our judgement that a game is shit is the product of our collective blood and tears. Trudging through a shitfest for the seventh time so you can state with absolute authority that it is shit... that is the mark of a fucking Codexer.

 

[Sceptic]

While Tycn's dig is funny, there's also a hint of truth to it. Many of us criticize those (whether they're "professional" journalists or whether they're skyway) for calling a game shit without playing it. Wouldn't we be equally guilty if we just said "yeah preview looks shit I won't touch it?" all the time? I admit I do this sometimes; I doubt I'll be touching F3AR or THI4F for example. But I still installed Crysis 2, despite having very low expectations. 5 levels in it's exactly as mediocre as I expected. Maybe I'll continue playing it, maybe I won't, but so far I can say it's a mediocre game while comfortable in the knowledge that this is my opinion on the game, not someone else's opinion that I'm parroting. However, I certainly won't re-play it, assuming I finish it at all. I think that's a balanced and fair way to assess games that are bad/shitty without being completely unplayable.

The thing about completing mediocre or shitty (but still playable games) is that you can never tell whether the game's quality will improve. Take WOX. My initial reaction to MM4 after MM3 was "this is pretty disappointing". Yet I persevered, and by the time MM5 came out and I went to the Darkside WOX suddenly catapulted to "best Might and Magic game". Now you could argue they're two different games, so let's pick Arcanum. My initial reaction was "this interface is shit". Yet I persevered, only to be met with "this design is linear as shit". So I persevered yet more, and then once I got past Shrouded Hills and the game opened up I started liking it more and more. By the time I got to Tarrant I was at "this game is GOOD". First impressions can be accurate, but sometimes you'll miss out on a really good game if you go by them.

 

[Lunac]

...
..
.

We're a community of elite individuals. Do you expect us to dismiss a game based on assumptions and previous experience alone? Perhaps you would find the Bethesda forum more to your liking. They make a lot of assumptions there.

What the majority of newfags fail to realise is that we are justified in our hatred. Our judgement that a game is shit is the product of our collective blood and tears. Trudging through a shitfest for the seventh time so you can state with absolute authority that it is shit... that is the mark of a fucking Codexer.

So boredom, or consoletard?

...
..
.

 

[shihonage]

If you think about it, Fear 2 and 3 storylines are a bizarre re-telling of the Terminator story.

That is, if Kyle Reese was raped by Sarah Connor, and their son turned out to be Miles Dyson, prompting Kyle to go after him to prevent apocalypse.

 

[sea]

...
..
.

There's a few reasons, I guess.

Piracy is pretty rampant, especially here on the Codex (or at least more people here admit to it), and even if you factory in bandwidth costs, many people still don't pay a cent to pirate a game. You install it, crack it, play it for twenty minutes and form an opinion. I find it hard to believe most people who say X game is absolute shit played it for extended periods of time. Even then, some games can still be fun "for the lulz" without really being particularly good. See Oblivion for a game where you can spend a lot of time doing a lot of stupid shit, and have some giggles with mods, but ultimately is still pretty awful.

The second one is that you may buy a game expecting it to be good. I know several people here did, in fact, recently purchase Dungeon Siege III and felt they were let down (some did not, of course). Even if you feel a game is bad, you might want to spend time playing it or even replaying it, especially if it's relatively short, in order to try to extract some sort of value from it. "I paid my $50 USD, and I'd better get something out of this, even if it's just +30 hours on my Xfire profile!"

Standards on the Codex are also pretty different from what you see on other sites. FEAR 3, for example, is a completely competent game. It looks alright, it's mechanically sound, it's devoid of major bugs, it even has some novel ideas. But on the Codex, and in the eyes of many other gamers, competence isn't enough - you need, at the very least, some sort of hook, gimmick, or degree of excellence in one aspect before people here start to respect the game and start to consider it worthy of praise. Does it make the game "shit"? Not really, but it does mean it's completely unworthy of spending time on, unless you're the type that gets a kick out of ripping things apart and wants to do so from a position of authority (i.e. has actually played the game).

Oh, and everyone here is a fucking loser with no life, I guess that helps.

 

[MetalCraze]

Standards on the Codex are also pretty different from what you see on other sites.

Tell me about these sites that have different standards from the Codex

FEAR 3, for example, is a completely competent game. It looks alright, it's mechanically sound, it's devoid of major bugs, it even has some novel ideas.

Sure. If it's your first FPS.

 

[Lunac]

...
..
.

There's a few reasons, I guess.

Piracy is pretty rampant, especially here on the Codex (or at least more people here admit to it), and even if you factory in bandwidth costs, many people still don't pay a cent to pirate a game. You install it, crack it, play it for twenty minutes and form an opinion. I find it hard to believe most people who say X game is absolute shit played it for extended periods of time. Even then, some games can still be fun "for the lulz" without really being particularly good. See Oblivion for a game where you can spend a lot of time doing a lot of stupid shit, and have some giggles with mods, but ultimately is still pretty awful.

The second one is that you may buy a game expecting it to be good. I know several people here did, in fact, recently purchase Dungeon Siege III and felt they were let down (some did not, of course). Even if you feel a game is bad, you might want to spend time playing it or even replaying it, especially if it's relatively short, in order to try to extract some sort of value from it. "I paid my $50 USD, and I'd better get something out of this, even if it's just +30 hours on my Xfire profile!"

Standards on the Codex are also pretty different from what you see on other sites. FEAR 3, for example, is a completely competent game. It looks alright, it's mechanically sound, it's devoid of major bugs, it even has some novel ideas. But on the Codex, and in the eyes of many other gamers, competence isn't enough - you need, at the very least, some sort of hook, gimmick, or degree of excellence in one aspect before people here start to respect the game and start to consider it worthy of praise. Does it make the game "shit"? Not really, but it does mean it's completely unworthy of spending time on, unless you're the type that gets a kick out of ripping things apart and wants to do so from a position of authority (i.e. has actually played the game).

.

Again, no answer. Well my question was pretty straight forward and only one person gave what seemed an honest and direct answer. Again, why if Codex is such a bastion of old-school hardcore players, where is the wisdom? What I mean to say is, sometimes you don't have to take a spoonful of that warm gooey brown stuff, get it all inside your mouth, lips smacking and everything, to know it's 100% certified shit! Except here it seems people eat shit for breakfast, lunch and dinner. I expected that kind of shit on GameSpot forums, not here. You don't need to try DS III, FEAR III, CoD "Whatever numerical iteration by now" to know these games are shit. Not unless you were fucking born after 1995 or something

Oh, and everyone here is a fucking loser with no life, I guess that helps.

Is that it? I guess boredom then? Or is it just a Codex thing, where it's cool to knowingly play shit games and then rage about them. Is this what Codex is about? Some sort of teen-angst venting zone for RPG-gamers and undercover consoletards?


...
..
.

 

[BLOBERT]

BROS YOU ARE ALLL FUCKING CONSOLETARS ESPECIALLY SKYWAYS WHO PLAYS EVERY PEACE PF SHIT THERE IS LOLLOLOL BRO CECK YOU ASS FOR YOUR BRIANS

 

[sea]

Again, no answer. Well my question was pretty straight forward and only one person gave what seemed an honest and direct answer. Again, why if Codex is such a bastion of old-school hardcore players, where is the wisdom? What I mean to say is, sometimes you don't have to take a spoonful of that warm gooey brown stuff, get it all inside your mouth, lips smacking and everything, to know it's 100% certified shit! Except here it seems people eat shit for breakfast, lunch and dinner. I expected that kind of shit on GameSpot forums, not here. You don't need to try DS III, FEAR III, CoD "Whatever numerical iteration by now" to know these games are shit. Not unless you were fucking born after 1995 or something

How did I not give an answer?

There are a number of different reasons one could have for wanting to try out a game, even knowing it's probably going to be bad (and as I said, by Codex standards, usually bad = middle of the road/average). When the cost of playing a game can be so low (i.e. free), there's little disincentive to at least try it out, and even if you pay for your games, it's easy to be taken in by previews and positive opinions even if you later find they were misleading (and certain criteria you might examine a game under can't be determined until significant play-time has been invested, i.e. short length or shallow mechanics).

Point is, you might have some sort of "shit sense" as defined by your own tastes. Tastes differ as do definitions of what constitutes a shitty game (or anything else for that matter). Of course, it's your right to disagree, and by all means go ahead and tell people you think their taste sucks... but if you believe in that the quality of videogames is some sort of fixed, objective thing determined entirely by your own understanding of what constitutes a "good game" then I'm not sure what you're doing speaking to other people, because you're certainly not going to accomplish anything or advance human discourse/understanding with that kind of worldview, and I sure don't expect anyone to have a hope of changing your mind about anything.

 

[Overweight Manatee]

Its more just a question of numbers. No one at the codex is playing every shitty game that comes out. But out of the entire population at least one will end up getting a "this looks semi-interesting" impression long enough to not remove from an inventory and check it out. Then when it is shit they do their duty and make a thread so that everyone knows what they are getting into.

 

[Roguey]

Even if you feel a game is bad, you might want to spend time playing it or even replaying it, especially if it's relatively short, in order to try to extract some sort of value from it. "I paid my $50 USD, and I'd better get something out of this, even if it's just +30 hours on my Xfire profile!"

This is a terrible idea. Why waste time on things you don't enjoy? Move on and do something fun.

 

[Konjad]

Standards on the Codex are also pretty different from what you see on other sites.

Tell me about these sites that have different standards from the Codex

RPGWatch

'nuff said

 

[Captain Shrek]

The problem is of course game writers. They are so much fail no movie or TV scene will have them so they write their shit for games.

That's why 95% of games retards claim to have "good writing" have it cringeworthy at best.

Too true.

 

[Shannow]

Standards on the Codex are also pretty different from what you see on other sites. FEAR 3, for example, is a completely competent game. It looks alright, it's mechanically sound, it's devoid of major bugs, it even has some novel ideas. But on the Codex, and in the eyes of many other gamers, competence isn't enough - you need, at the very least, some sort of hook, gimmick, or degree of excellence in one aspect before people here start to respect the game and start to consider it worthy of praise. Does it make the game "shit"? Not really, but it does mean it's completely unworthy of spending time on, unless you're the type that gets a kick out of ripping things apart and wants to do so from a position of authority (i.e. has actually played the game).

It's more that some posters on the codex actually have standards as opposed to many other gaming sites. And a game doesn't need "a hook or gimmick" to be generally accepted. A degree of excelence helps but overall the good has to outweigh the bad. Since modern games adhere to different priorities than the prevalent tastes on the codex, that balance is rarely in favour of them. *shrug*
You also make the mistake of equating some very outspoken posters with "the codex". Some will argue for ten pages that a game "is shit" or that you only need "to plug in a controller to magically make it non-shit", but all those who are between those opinions either don't post or only post once or twice. Since a mediocre/average game simply isn't worth more of their attention.
The naive reader will assume that the codex is extremely bipolar. The moronic reader will simply blend out all moderate opinions and those that support/share his own and whine about "the codex" hating/loving game xy although his/her/its opinion is different and actually the "right" one.

 

[Sceptic]

You also make the mistake of equating some very outspoken posters with "the codex".

Considering how many times you've already said this, I'm amazed you still have the stamina to repeat it every time someone does this. My amazement, however, is tinged with admiration

 

[Gragt]

The best part is also those who obviously hate the Codex but have nowhere else to post.

 

[BLOBERT]

BROS THIS ME POSTING ALL CRAZY AND DRUNK BUT SOMETIMES YOU CAN DISLIKE THINGS WITHOUT THEM BEING TOTAL SHIT

FOR EXAMPLE BROS I WAS NOT INTERESTING IN BETRAYAL AT KRONDOR AFTER A FEW ABORTIVE STARTS BUT JUDGING FROM COMMON OPIINON OF PEOPLE I TRUST THE GAME IS LIKELY NOT SHIT

BROS IF A GAME IS MEDIOCRE YEAH I CAN UNDERSTAND PLAYING IT TO THE END BUT IF IT IS REALLLY AND TRULY SHIT THAN WHY BOTHER UNLESS YOU KNOW IT GETS BETTER BUT EVEN THEN I KNOW MY PATIENCE HAS LIMITS

 

[Shannow]

You also make the mistake of equating some very outspoken posters with "the codex".

Considering how many times you've already said this, I'm amazed you still have the stamina to repeat it every time someone does this. My amazement, however, is tinged with admiration

Well, the sad truth is that I made a similar mistake once. An often voiced and suggested opinion was thar disliking the hunger-meter in MotB was a "retard-detector". Since I dislike the way the mechanic was implemented I sort of raged in a thread about a moronic reviewer: "The codex is being moronic for that kind of generalisation. It is perfectly possible to non-retardedly criticise the mechanic and its implementation." It was then pointed out to me that nothing of the kind had happened and I was completely overreacting. When overflying the thread once again I noticed that it was true. Perhaps 3 posters had commented on "retard-detector", 2 of those very specifically in context of said retarded reviewer. Took the wind out of my sails of righteous anger.
I try to be more circumspect since then since I dislike repeating mistakes. Of course, pointing out their mistakes doesn't inhibit everyone (looking at you, Alexandros)... *shrug*
Plus, when I can easily disprove moronic claims with stupid polls, that's always fun

 

[Achilles]

BROS YOU ARE ALLL FUCKING CONSOLETARS ESPECIALLY SKYWAYS WHO PLAYS EVERY PEACE PF SHIT THERE IS LOLLOLOL BRO CECK YOU ASS FOR YOUR BRIANS

Hey BLOBERT my bro, why don't you try reading the following fable?

http://www.aesops-fables.org.uk/aesop-fable-the-fox-without-a-tail.htm

 

[relootz]

Don't even need to play Fear 3 to know that it is shit.

Fear was a good game and fear 3 needs to be a serious improvement of the first game to be considered good still.

Fat chance of that happening.

 

[CorpseZeb]

Point is, you might have some sort of "shit sense" as defined by your own tastes. Tastes differ as do definitions of what constitutes a shitty game (or anything else for that matter). Of course, it's your right to disagree, and by all means go ahead and tell people you think their taste sucks... but if you believe in that the quality of videogames is some sort of fixed, objective thing determined entirely by your own understanding of what constitutes a "good game" then I'm not sure what you're doing speaking to other people, because you're certainly not going to accomplish anything or advance human discourse/understanding with that kind of worldview, and I sure don't expect anyone to have a hope of changing your mind about anything.

Hm. You called it "shit sense" I call it "memory". You see, Fear 3 (or Oblivion) are not a "bad" games per se, because - at it own stand - *every* game (or, any product of other human intellectual work) have very right to existing, have very right to be judge in light of own idiosyncratic values. But we have a thing called "memory" which tell us another story, greater story then song of one game, one work, one thing. We remembered "Fear 1" or "Morrowind", we judge tomorrow by yesterday emotions. And we want more, not less. Sounds very like Hegel vision of history progress but - I think - we humans are like a sharks - if we stop developed, progressing, spreading our intellectual wings, we just... drown. It's never about taste, is always about survive. Taste have infinite code of meanings, survival is binary - dead or alive.

Ps. This episode was brought to you by ginger beer in absence of real, proper porter.