next »

[Dragonmaw]

death to spies

[crowe]

titanfall. the smart-pistol is rather game-breaking and unbalanced compared to pretty much any other weapon, since it allows you to kill people without much effort while flipping around using the wall-jumping. titans are worse than useless, being inside one is actually detrimental since you can't move as well thanks to the relatively cramped maps. the bots are a terrible addition; their AI is terrible, and they can be killed for points with no effort. it is a bad game.

[Dragonmaw]

the smart pistol is really bad except in specific situations; titans are extremely useful after you know how to pilot them; the bots are basically moba creeps and their ai is bad on purpose

[J-Snake]

the smart-pistol is rather game-breaking and unbalanced compared to pretty much any other weapon

If so, why isn't everyone running around with it. From what I've seen any decent player will take you out since it takes time to auto-target. It's not like the game is designed by completely brain-dead people.

[Kinaetron]

I really appreciate everyone's input, but I'm still buying the shit out of this game 

[feminazi]

dum

[Thomas Finch]

It's fine, some people like scat... you can enjoy whatever you like. Just don't start pretending that what you like isn't shit.

In other words, "That's okay. You're wrong, but that's okay. Oh by the way, you're wrong."
I don't think you understand how opinions work.

[Thomas Finch]

The opposite really, unless we are going to go the route of everything being subjective i'd like to think that there are things that can be evaluated more objectively outside of preference.

So long as we acknowledge that there are flaws or facts about what it is that we like, thats all im asking.

For example, I like Team Fortress Classic but it's not a good game nor would I encourage others to try it. Knowing my tastes ill enjoy Titanfall for 1-2 weeks, in which time i'll have little to no competition and grow bored, but what im interested in is what could have been done to stem my boredom for longer and generally work out what elements are good.

Breaking things down and analysing them is worthwhile, to me the moment you put up the opinion/taste defence you stop being cognizant, but hey you like it... and thats ok.

However... thats just my opinion, right?

I agree with all of that, actually. I just think that saying Titanfall is shit quality is very extreme. I'm not saying I even like the game. I enjoyed beta, but not enough to buy the game unless a ton of my friends are playing. However, there was nothing specifically shit about the game. It felt polished, the graphics were really good, it wasn't buggy. Things like the guns, whether AI is necessary, how fun mechs were, etc are all things that come down to personal opinion so they can't really affect a game's factual amount of terrible. I know what you mean though. There are some games that are just absolute crap due to terrible design, bugginess or whatever. I don't think Titanfall really fits in that category.

[J-Snake]

Things like the guns, whether AI is necessary, how fun mechs were, etc are all things that come down to personal opinion so they can't really affect a game's factual amount of terrible.

That's the stuff where important things have to get objective, actually. For example if there is not much benefit in doing all the fancy parkour stuff etc. it's a waste of potential. Now whether it is the case or not has to be found out.

[Thomas Finch]

That's the stuff where important things have to get objective, actually. For example if there is not much benefit in doing all the fancy parkour stuff etc. it's a waste of potential. Now whether it is the case or not has to be found out.

I think that things like bugginess, terrible graphics, piercing music, etc are things that very generally are considered bad things. They're fairly objective. Things like the parkour, mechs, AI usefulness, etc are all things that one person could love and another could hate. So it's really subjective. Parkour could feel like a waste of potential to one person but another could have a blast doing it and not care what potential there could have been because its fine as is for him. I call that subjective.

I'm fine with people having whatever opinions they like, but its the people that hide behind that word so frequently that should get used to backing up their convictions. Instead its those that attack them that get the short end of the stick, it seems all too easy to disregard all criticism otherwise.

I agree. I think a lot of times someone will say something as if its fact and call other people wrong, but then say that it's their opinion so you can't argue with them. In other words, they have no way of defending their standpoint. I think that opinions should still be something people back up with reasons.

[J-Snake]

Parkour could feel like a waste of potential to one person but another could have a blast doing it and not care what potential there could have been because its fine as is for him. I call that subjective.

Whether something is fun or not can be subjective. Judging the in-game-benefit of possible techniques/strategies etc. is objective by how much they succeed or fail.

[eyeliner]

Parkour could feel like a waste of potential to one person but another could have a blast doing it and not care what potential there could have been because its fine as is for him. I call that subjective.

Whether something is fun or not can be subjective. Judging the in-game-benefit of possible techniques/strategies etc. is objective by how much they succeed or fail.

Dunno. For one thing, the first Tomb Raider was a blast for me because I kept looking for ways to kill Lara by setting up the perfect dive and get her smashed on the floor.
Beneficial to the game? Not in the least, because I rarely got out of the first level. But I sure as hell loved it. I also liked the T-Rex, but not as much.

[Thomas Finch]

Parkour could feel like a waste of potential to one person but another could have a blast doing it and not care what potential there could have been because its fine as is for him. I call that subjective.

Whether something is fun or not can be subjective. Judging the in-game-benefit of possible techniques/strategies etc. is objective by how much they succeed or fail.

Yeah of course, but saying, "this could have been better implemented" or "I thought it had a lot of wasted potential" doesn't make a game bad really. What's really important in my opinion is how much a game entertains and engages you. If a game has a lot of objectively bad content like bad graphics and glitches, it really distracts you from the entertainment value and makes the game just bad. However, stuff like parkour having wasted potential wouldn't really detract from my personal enjoyment of how fun it is to do. If the majority of people are enjoying a game extensively, then reason says that the game's objective flaws don't detract from it's entertainment value. Some people may hate Minecraft, but it can't really be considered a bad game with so many active player enjoying it so much. Of course, I do think there are exceptions. It's a very complicated argument. I mean, there's also the other side of the coin with game's like DayZ. It has a ton of players, but is extremely buggy and laggy. In this case though its mainly that players have nowhere else to go to get a similar experience (well maybe Rust, but it's not as realistic like some people want).

[J-Snake]

Yeah of course, but saying, "this could have been better implemented" or "I thought it had a lot of wasted potential" doesn't make a game bad really.

It makes it worse than it can be. What is fun remains still subjective, certain games are even bad on purpose solely for that reason.

[Thomas Finch]

Yeah of course, but saying, "this could have been better implemented" or "I thought it had a lot of wasted potential" doesn't make a game bad really.

It makes it worse than it can be. What is fun remains still subjective, certain games are even bad on purpose solely for that reason.

Yeah, I just think its drastic when people call a game terrible unless it really is just awful. There's just so much about it that I feel is subjective. Take Diablo III for example. There's still a ton of people who get a lot of entertainment out of it, but a lot of other people call it the worst game to ever exist because they did things a little differently from Diablo II. Have they played terrible games? Because Diablo III was very well done. It just had different design choices from Diablo II. That could be considered bad, like you're saying the wasted potential is bad. But in my opinion its not so much bad as it is less good. And if people are still being entertained, it's can't be all that less good.

[Mittens]

Why oh why did they make the mechs unable to jump!!

They make this wicked free-running system for human players, give you an EXTENSIVE and MANDATORY tutorial all about it, then when you actually get into a game you find that you will in fact spend 90% of your play time locked in a can which CANNOT PARCOUR AT ALL!

FYI Respawn, a mech that cannot jump or climb is more commonly known AS A TANK...
I no wan to paly werld of tanks!

[Dragonmaw]

Are you actually an idiot or are you just pretending to be one i can't tell

[Netsu]

Why oh why did they make the mechs unable to jump!!

They make this wicked free-running system for human players, give you an EXTENSIVE and MANDATORY tutorial all about it, then when you actually get into a game you find that you will in fact spend 90% of your play time locked in a can which CANNOT PARCOUR AT ALL!

FYI Respawn, a mech that cannot jump or climb is more commonly known AS A TANK...
I no wan to paly werld of tanks!

My friend described this game to me as "a mecha fps where you can do walljumps and stuff". Then I watch a video and turns out it's not the mecha that do the parkour. Lost all interest in an instant.

[Impmaster]

Are you actually an idiot or are you just pretending to be one i can't tell

Where's all the hate coming from, Dmaw?

[Whiteclaws]

The mechs can tbag , that's enough for me