ITT: Video game "criticisms" you can never take seriously
"Repetitive gameplay".
>MGS5 is so boring, dude, all you do is sneak around all game
>Soulsborne games are so boring, dude, all you do is kill stuff all game
>Starcraft and other RTS games are so boring, dude, all you do is click on shit all game
>Breath of the Wild is so boring, dude, all you do is climb shit
What the FUCK do these people want? Bonus points for if they've got 1,000s of hours clocked in on Counter-Strike or Overwatch.
>it's too hard
>it's too easy
>game has adjustable difficulty
the want fucking waifus and minigames and lot of stupid shit like crafting or coocking
>it's too Gamey
The fuck do you expect when you purchase a game? It has game in the name. Why is it bad that a game feels like a game you dumb cunts?
>it's not exactly the same as previous games, therefore it's bad
>"it's just another Mario game"
How does anyone think this helps their argument?
Whenever they get too revisionist. It's one thing to say this or that obvious little thing would be better another way, but too often I see people making big sweeping "this major feature should've been MY WAY!" statements. You're overstepping your bounds, mate. The critic's job is to figure out why something succeeds or fails, not to dictate to creators how to do their job.
Repetitive gameplay is a legit complaint, but it's your job to determine if the reviewer can actually back it up or is a retard. Considering most of the "professional" reviewers are retards, I can see your point though.
>Ugh the graphics make my eyes bleed :(
>black character does anything
>uhmmmmmm....thats racist...sweetie
this "..." horse shit boils my fucking blood, every time I see it my vision goes red and I can just imagine the fucking faggot typing the period key three times in succession while genuinely thinking it adds anything to their trivial opinion
>"The graphics are shit"
>game actually looks perfectly fine, it just doesn't cause all but the most high-end gaming rigs to burst into flames which somehow means it's bad
Art design and visual clarity >>>>>>>>> technical graphic specs
This happens to me with the ace combats in ace difficulty. Love them to death but I find them too easy.
This is one thing that boggles my mind about Xenoblade Chronicles 2. It looks like muddy garbage and has the artistic cohesion of a cheap gachapon game but since the environments look like they jumped out of an early PS3 graphical showpiece people claim it looks beautiful. Aesthetic matter so much more than fidelity.
>If you can't get good at a fighting game, you're just shit
If anything it shows the community for said game is full of faggots. Prove me wrong.
>Amazing game resulted in bad sequels, therefore it is now bad
Variety in gameplay is a good thing
You should be able to sneak, kill stuff, click on shit, climb, craft, and do all types of shit all in the same game.
brainlet
>my preferred difficulty makes fun of me
What are you even trying to say here? That you think if you can't get good at a fighting game it's the game's fault? I don't understand
So Tetris would be better if a bunch of unrelated shit was added to it
People saying a game is "boring" or just "shit" without saying why and getting buttmad when you ask them to elaborate.
>its soulless
Sup Forums has yet to actually explain this without using another buzzword
>You should be able to sneak, kill stuff, click on shit, climb, craft, and do all types of shit all in the same game.
All that shit is in the Soulsborne games, BOTW, and MGS5 to varying degrees. And yet people still complain about how repetitive those games are.
It means "I played a different game when I was a kid and this doesn't feel the same since I played it when I was older, so it sucks"
>shit plot doesn't make the game boring because who cares about plot in vidya
>only one aspect of video games matter, the other ones are pointless
>All you do is mash buttons
>All you do is point and click to win
You guys are going to think I'm trolling, but yes "arcade" style games like Tetris or Pac-man are indeed garbage
Even a simple game like Super Mario Bros has variety in levels and things like swimming to mix it up a bit which is good enough for me since it's a game you don't play for more than an hour
I disagree with the sentiment that those particular games qualify as repetitive
>this game isn't good, because (5% of the time) is shit, therefore the whole game is shit
>This game is rated E/ E10+ in a genre dominated by games rated T and M, but since it doesn't appeal to me as someone who has played many of those games its bad
>this game doesn't have a bunch of filler to pad out the length so it's not worth my money
Any review that starts with or contains either of the following:
>I wanted to like it but
>It's a good game, but not a good ____ game
100% chance the writer is an idiot
>it's not fun, therefore it isn't good
Dude... You need to relax...
>Gameplay is the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS
I'm so tired of reading this on here when it's not even true. Gameplay is a huge part of what makes a game good, but it is only part of it and there are plenty of games with weaker gameplay that more than make up for it in other aspects.
I swear this argument was traced back to the "walking simulator" debates (if that's even the right word?) that used to be on here constantly where Sup Forums came to the conclusion that gameplay is the only thing that matters in a game and lost about 20 IQ points in the process. Similarly the idea that there is "objectively" good and bad gameplay is another source of retardation when a big part of gameplay is down to personal preference.
I've just given up. I like what I like and only come to Sup Forums for braindead memeposting and talking about a few specific games now.
>sweetie
There needs to be a genocide of people who use this word. Also, middle-aged white women who use the word "hun" can fuck right off.
The Reason that game play only matters is because most games dont have changing story therefore game play is the only thing that matters
...
Everything about this post.
Gameplay is the only thing that matters. Everything else is just extra.
Give me an example of a game with weaker gameplay that somehow makes it up in other areas.
>replying twice
Drakengard.
>:56:27
>:57:14
>>replying twice
>it looks like a ps2 game
Bonus points if the faggot using this tired ass meme was too young to have been fully cognizant during the 6th gen. Oh yeah, on an unrelated note -
>calling the 6th gen the "ps2 era"
Name five games you love.
Your point?
It depends on the game. If dialogue and story are completely skippable then I think it's fair to say shit story shouldn't be something that's held against a game with stellar gameplay. If the game forces you to sit through the story it better be good.
>too anime
k
>Similarly the idea that there is "objectively" good and bad gameplay is another source of retardation when a big part of gameplay is down to personal preference.
Certain aspects are objectively measurable, you can't just say none of it matters because some of it is subjective. Whether or not you liked a movie is subjective but we have parameters that are generally agreed upon that dictate whether its well-made or not, its not all just opinion.
Gameplay is the only thing that matters because games are the only medium that has gameplay. You can tell a story with any other form of entertainment, only games have gameplay. Games aren't great at telling stories but letting the player make them instead, games that opt to just present the player with a narrative miss the point of a game entirely.
this
alternatively
>western garbage
>it has turn based combat
>too much backtracking
backtracking is only bad if it's not like zelda or metroid where you get upgrades to make backtracking rewarding.
Except for Metroid Prime 3 where you go to one end of the level and just walk back.
What the fuck do you mean by "your point?"?
You asked for a game that is not very good in the gameplay aspect but that is still a great experience due to its others qualities and I gave you an example.
God, what a tedious autist you are
Fallout New Vegas
Anything Yoko Taro makes? Also VNs. Budget games tend to do this too. The EDF series is rather repetitive and the gameplay is somewhat basic, but the ridiculousness of the setting, the physics, and the voice acting makes the game shine. Hell, it even ENHANCES the shitty gameplay. It doesn't make it better but it does make the overall experience more fun. The entire thing is a crappy B-movie now.
If you want to be cynical about it, games based off existing brands can get away with weaker gameplay because people are just there to see Darth Vader or whoever the fuck.
there are enough vidya that you aren't forced to play "animeshit" or "western garbage" and yet people make these kinds of posts in threads of each type
>Street Fighter V doesn't have enough defensive options
wat? It has an entire mechanic devoted to defensive options; the v-reversal. Not only that but in SF4 they had invincible backdashes and everybody shat their pants about that, so I just chock this shit up to the FGC being a bunch of whiners & complainers.
>Souless
>Boring
>Doesn't explain their points
>Pretends to understand game development
>Cut content=unfinished game
>MGS5 is so boring, dude, all you do is sneak around all game
No one really says that about its gameplay, moreso its godawful maps/level design. That's a legitimate, massive flaw.
Earthbound
>the fanbase is shit, therefore the game is shit
>WoW clone
>Not innovative enough
>Outdated mechanics
There's a thing called genres. 99% of games aren't going to reinvent the wheel. If one does, that's great, but if you EXPECT it that's dumb
>The game lacks NG+ therefore its complete fucking trash
Fucking Witcher 3 has 100 hours of content just for the base game yet people bitched about it lacking a NG+ option in damn near every thread on release. Same thing for Final Fantasy XV.
>The game ends when you do the final mission and I can't do freeroam or finish the sidequests therefore the game is shit
Finish up the sidequests before you do the final mission or have a save file before the final mission, goddamn, it's not that hard.
>your dole dippers, faggot
doesn't bother me anymore
>Games are the only medium that has gameplay
This
I enjoy a good story when it's there, but when it comes to games my preference for developer focus is:
Gameplay > Sound > Artstyle > Story > Graphics
Sure there's games that transcend this order,
but for real
it always comes down to what clicks with (You).
If you're playing for challenge and fun then great gameplay is a must.
If you like the feeling of being immersed then story or graphics is a must.
almost as if people can have different opinions on a medium, without being inherently wrong about what they enjoy
this is a great thread btw
>MGS5
>5
>The game ends when you do the final mission and I can't do freeroam or finish the sidequests therefore the game is shit
This is especially egrarious when the game makes it very clear that there's no going back if you walk through this door to fight the final boss. They usually explicitly use the words "no going back" and "make sure you've done everything" as well, so what the fuck were people expecting?
Related to NG+ is post game content. Its not a requirement if the game has enough shit to do as-is.
Nah, games have different priorities, some are more focused on gameplay so it plays a bigger part in how good the game is but there are plenty of games out there that have slightly weaker gameplay than other games but I prefer them over other games with better gameplay for a whole bunch of reasons. Gameplay will always be just part of what makes a game good.
It's kind of strange you insist that games should have arbitrary limitations on what we expect from it. Just because games are unique in terms of having gameplay, doesn't mean that it is the only important thing about them since the intentions for what a game is trying to do will vary from game to game, and preferences will vary from person to person.
I think it's a little narrow minded to then say that "games aren't great at storytelling" when I would say that games offer new narratives that haven't really been explored before where the player is given so much control over them. I think story being told through games is still in its infancy for the most part, but nothing about games makes me think they are intrinsically bad at telling stories. I honestly play very little story based games, but I can see the potential for interesting narratives to be told, even if those types of game don't really appeal to me.
neo Sup Forums morons criticizing arcade games for being arcade games. guess you can't blame them for being underaged and having no knowledge of games.
Again, dialogue and story are part of the game, if they suck then they contribute towards the game sucking. I've played games that have had great gameplay but the story was garbage and also games with not-so-great gameplay but with interesting stories/characters/atmosphere/whatever that I would rank as roughly the same in terms of enjoyable-nes
For a second I thought you were intelligent and talking about how worthless minorities will complain about any character they share a skin tone with regardless of any action they take, or instead complain about the lack of it. Shame I ended up reading the rest of your post