Machocruz
Arcane
A person has to understand the environment that the so called "elitist" Codex view of games is formed in, at least on my part, and why opposing views are important to understand, and why dissenting opinion is important. This is an environment where even so called professionals don't bother supporting their proclamations. The average review, and the average forum goer logic boils down to "Game X was great because element A was good/fun/enjoyable." This is ok for casual jibber-jabber with friends hanging out, but in venues that are designed for discussion to take place, this is useless. Adjectives are not analysis. How was element A made to be fun by the design choices and execution of the developers? If they can't be descriptive, how persuasive can their argument be? Not enough to support bold proclamations about the quality or GoTYness of a game (yes, I'm back on that again.)
There is also a lack of understanding of a fundamental rule of criticism: Good is not the same as Like, Bad is not the same as Dislike. To believe otherwise is to believe that no one can ever enjoy/dislike something that is poorly/well crafted, that we all have immaculate taste and complete grasp of everything. This doesn't serve good argument, this serves ego. I'll be first to admit I know fuck all about what makes a good piece of music, or good musicianship. I like what I like. But I will not go into places and dig my heels in and proclaim that my opinion on the matter is just as valid (meaning: informed) as everyone elses. My opinion on the matter is only as good as my support of it, and my support on it depends on my effort and the ability to learn about music, musical standards, musical history, etc.
So if I say the combat in a game is poor, or underwhelming, or below par and I make an effort to explain the underlying design choices that I think lead to this, a simple "well that's your opinion. I enjoyed it," takes all the air out of a discussion. But I'll take that over outright dishonesty and illogic. For example take a common exchange I've seen in discussions of DAI's tactical combat, or lack there of:
Salty Grognard: The combat does not require tactics. The enemy AI engages in very direct and simplistic routines that can be neutralized by holding down R2 and doing so and so. You can essentially faceroll them.
Unwashed Pleb: But you didn't play on Nightmare. I had to pause the game and issue orders. It became more tactical.
Now, think about whether this is true or not. Is tactics defined by being able to pause combat and issue orders? Why do we find ourselves needing to pause combat and issue orders on the higher difficulties? Is it because the tactics of the enemies change and they become more effective in implementing those tactics, and thus you have to think tactically to counter their cleverness? Or is it because you find yourself in a situation where damage and HP bloat is forcing you to pause to keep up with the higher rate of damage-over-time being delivered to your party; is having to pause time because of the AI's systemic advantage in managing multiple actors simultaneously really "tactics"? Is that a logical conclusion to come to? Or how about this chestnut:
Salty Grognard: I played the game for 60 hours. Here's my critique
Unwashed Reddit Pleb: But you didn't play the whole 100 hours it takes to complete the game
Salty Grognard: I played the entire game. Took me 150 hours. Here's my critique
URP: If you put that much time into it, you must have liked it!
As with SJWs, you can't win. Either 60% of a game isn't enough to criticize a game's core features, as if that other 40% is where the REAL good stuff is; or you secretly loved it and your criticisms are suspect.
Then there is the old "Waah, stop liking what I don't like" dismissal. Nevermind that "like" has nothing to do with it. In fact, I'm almost convinced that, for the sake of a critic's sanity, a review should consist of telling a person what is happening as objectively as possible "In combat encounters, I only had to do X over and over. That was enough to win 90% of the time. Enemy encounters on Nightmare are tougher only because enemies have more hitpoints and do more damage." Don't even say you think this is bad or good, just let people sort it out for themselves. And frankly, I don't really care if Yurin Toil'ette over at Eurogamer enjoyed shit or not - I don't care about your feels, or hearing about how the game is best or better than or how majestic it is, just describe the content and its workings in detail, then get out of the way.
So, it's not a matter of changing people's minds to not like or like a game. It's a matter of being frustrated that people's minds aren't working at all. Yet these unthinking minds think they hold some kind of truth. When it's time for forum e-peen measuring contests, scores and GoTY awards matter a whole lot. The Last of Us is objectively the best game of the year, all the reviews said so, all your awards belong to Us, etc. But if everyone hated the game they love or Gamespot gave it an 8 instead of 9.5? "Opinions, how do they work?" "I'm never coming to this site again!" "In what world is Demon's Souls better than Uncharted 2? Eat shit, GS!"
Personally, hugboxes sicken me. Consensus is tyranny.
There is also a lack of understanding of a fundamental rule of criticism: Good is not the same as Like, Bad is not the same as Dislike. To believe otherwise is to believe that no one can ever enjoy/dislike something that is poorly/well crafted, that we all have immaculate taste and complete grasp of everything. This doesn't serve good argument, this serves ego. I'll be first to admit I know fuck all about what makes a good piece of music, or good musicianship. I like what I like. But I will not go into places and dig my heels in and proclaim that my opinion on the matter is just as valid (meaning: informed) as everyone elses. My opinion on the matter is only as good as my support of it, and my support on it depends on my effort and the ability to learn about music, musical standards, musical history, etc.
So if I say the combat in a game is poor, or underwhelming, or below par and I make an effort to explain the underlying design choices that I think lead to this, a simple "well that's your opinion. I enjoyed it," takes all the air out of a discussion. But I'll take that over outright dishonesty and illogic. For example take a common exchange I've seen in discussions of DAI's tactical combat, or lack there of:
Salty Grognard: The combat does not require tactics. The enemy AI engages in very direct and simplistic routines that can be neutralized by holding down R2 and doing so and so. You can essentially faceroll them.
Unwashed Pleb: But you didn't play on Nightmare. I had to pause the game and issue orders. It became more tactical.
Now, think about whether this is true or not. Is tactics defined by being able to pause combat and issue orders? Why do we find ourselves needing to pause combat and issue orders on the higher difficulties? Is it because the tactics of the enemies change and they become more effective in implementing those tactics, and thus you have to think tactically to counter their cleverness? Or is it because you find yourself in a situation where damage and HP bloat is forcing you to pause to keep up with the higher rate of damage-over-time being delivered to your party; is having to pause time because of the AI's systemic advantage in managing multiple actors simultaneously really "tactics"? Is that a logical conclusion to come to? Or how about this chestnut:
Salty Grognard: I played the game for 60 hours. Here's my critique
Unwashed Reddit Pleb: But you didn't play the whole 100 hours it takes to complete the game
Salty Grognard: I played the entire game. Took me 150 hours. Here's my critique
URP: If you put that much time into it, you must have liked it!
As with SJWs, you can't win. Either 60% of a game isn't enough to criticize a game's core features, as if that other 40% is where the REAL good stuff is; or you secretly loved it and your criticisms are suspect.
Then there is the old "Waah, stop liking what I don't like" dismissal. Nevermind that "like" has nothing to do with it. In fact, I'm almost convinced that, for the sake of a critic's sanity, a review should consist of telling a person what is happening as objectively as possible "In combat encounters, I only had to do X over and over. That was enough to win 90% of the time. Enemy encounters on Nightmare are tougher only because enemies have more hitpoints and do more damage." Don't even say you think this is bad or good, just let people sort it out for themselves. And frankly, I don't really care if Yurin Toil'ette over at Eurogamer enjoyed shit or not - I don't care about your feels, or hearing about how the game is best or better than or how majestic it is, just describe the content and its workings in detail, then get out of the way.
So, it's not a matter of changing people's minds to not like or like a game. It's a matter of being frustrated that people's minds aren't working at all. Yet these unthinking minds think they hold some kind of truth. When it's time for forum e-peen measuring contests, scores and GoTY awards matter a whole lot. The Last of Us is objectively the best game of the year, all the reviews said so, all your awards belong to Us, etc. But if everyone hated the game they love or Gamespot gave it an 8 instead of 9.5? "Opinions, how do they work?" "I'm never coming to this site again!" "In what world is Demon's Souls better than Uncharted 2? Eat shit, GS!"
Personally, hugboxes sicken me. Consensus is tyranny.
Last edited:
