Pretty unfortunate given the fact that it's Rayman and it deserves a fair audience, but I can't particularly express a surprised outlook about it because as soon as the September release date was announced, Ubisoft was pitting an ant up against a black widow (insert death glare at GTA here) and didn't really do very much of anything to advertise to anyone whose name wasn't Tre or kept up on the development and progress after the delay.
I do have faith that the game'll be a slow burn success for Ubi though, because that was how it worked with Origins and I knew a big portion of the audience (on Polygon anyway) only really held their reservations because of the fact that the game launched at $60. Additionally, there's definitely an untapped audience in the game-buying public of kids and teens without plans for the PS4 or Xbox One, but somehow I get the feeling it'll be harder to find that audience without a good campaign for the game (I saw TV ads for Origins pretty frequently back when it was new, but Legends had basically nothing).
Ah well. Hopefully it won't be bad enough that Ubi won't want to continue the series, because I have a mighty need for a modern 3D entry on the next generation systems.
Also, I might or might not have much to speak of Legends on or after Saturday. I wanted it for my birthday, but the rents apparently were having trouble hunting it down for the Vita.
It is kind of weird, because both of them were pretty damn highly regarded by their respective audiences. Guess Splinter Cell isn't as hot a property as it once was, or GTA just went on ahead and ate its cake too.
They might end up both being late bloomers for Ubi over time, honestly. It wouldn't be out of the question as more people's wallets refill after having bought their tickets to Los Santos.
I was in a pretty bad mood last night so I was unwilling and unable to properly express why I found the article Naney linked so grating.
I've been reading reviews since I was ten. I've always loved criticism of media. But there's always a group of people in any sort of critical circle who don't have any desire to inspire love for their medium's successes, but scorn for their failures. It's why it's so hard to do the "angry reviewer" correctly. That article in particular wasn't necessarily wrong- Bioshock's themes versus Bioshock's gameplay being extremely incongruous is almost an unintentional running theme- but in my opinion, they've never actually undone the games. Sure, they're very severe problems, but they're not game ending problems. And if they ruin it for you, fine. But kindly remove your head from your backside and realize that just because certain poor decisions ruined a game for you doesn't mean anyone who doesn't agree is automatically an idiot. Especially considering a great deal of the attention the series has gotten as of late is due to its flaws. It's like he couldn't even parse the idea that someone could recognize those flaws and still enjoy the game.
Also, calling it the worst game ever is a wee bit harsh. There are two worst games ever:
1. Custer's Revenge
2. A game someone made after just figuring out programming that no one has heard of.
More people have said that and been killed than there are thorium decay products.
He seems to be one of those types who wants games to be life-like and "nonlinear" and stuff. Regardless, if what he says about women and black people in the game is true, then I totally agree with him on those topics. And he is totally right that any thematic "choices" are kind o just grafted on and also there is no challenge at all because it is impossible to lose. I looked at his Zelda article too; it kind of amounts to him complaining that the series relies on tightly-designed puzzles instead of the sandbox-style exploration of the original, which is whatever. He is right, though, that the series from the third installment onward is dreadfully easy to survive (which is why I am only entertained by challenge runs).
"Humanity is better than sterile perfection" is the point they're both going for, I think. I know that's the point of TWE at least.
Humanity is most definitely not better.
SMT paints a very bleak picture of the human condition. All of the world's problems (even God being an insane dickhole) stem from (or are implied to stem from) how human beings kill each other needlessly/how humans abuse the environment/how humans cannot control their rage and lust/etc. Jack's Squad hammered that point home by showing how disgusting, vile and crass humanity really is, once all pretenses are dropped.
tl;dr HFY is stupid because humans are dickheads (at least as portrayed in SMT)
I was in a pretty bad mood last night so I was unwilling and unable to properly express why I found the article Naney linked so grating.
I've been reading reviews since I was ten. I've always loved criticism of media. But there's always a group of people in any sort of critical circle who don't have any desire to inspire love for their medium's successes, but scorn for their failures. It's why it's so hard to do the "angry reviewer" correctly. That article in particular wasn't necessarily wrong- Bioshock's themes versus Bioshock's gameplay being extremely incongruous is almost an unintentional running theme- but in my opinion, they've never actually undone the games. Sure, they're very severe problems, but they're not game ending problems. And if they ruin it for you, fine. But kindly remove your head from your backside and realize that just because certain poor decisions ruined a game for you doesn't mean anyone who doesn't agree is automatically an idiot. Especially considering a great deal of the attention the series has gotten as of late is due to its flaws. It's like he couldn't even parse the idea that someone could recognize those flaws and still enjoy the game.
Also, calling it the worst game ever is a wee bit harsh. There are two worst games ever:
1. Custer's Revenge
2. A game someone made after just figuring out programming that no one has heard of.
Bioshock Infinite is most certainly flawed but it is definitely not the "worst game ever".
My main complaints are that they didn't do much to fix the gameplay flaws inherent in Bioshock, but I've already discussed that elsewhere.
And he is totally right that any thematic "choices" are kind o just grafted on
Look, I get that you only really play games for the gameplay and more specifically because they're challenging, but why can't you accept that some games have good narratives and aren't just trying to imitate movies? Because one of the many reasons Bioshock is lauded is because it has almost no cutscenes. All story information is presented within the context of the game.
and also there is no challenge at all because it is impossible to lose.
Because having frustrating punishments for failure would make the game worse. I agree that Bioshock is, on the whole, pretty easy due to this mechanic but it ultimately betters the game. Harsh punishments for death would totally break the flow of the game.
He is right, though, that the series from the third installment onward is dreadfully easy to survive (which is why I am only entertained by challenge runs).
This seems a bit unfair, especially considering the third is one of the easier games in the series. I'll try to break it down game by game:
TLoZ: difficult combat, no puzzles, minimal side content
AoL: very difficult combat, no puzzles, minimal side content
ALttP: easy-ish combat, easy-medium puzzles, minimal side content
LA: medium combat, difficult puzzles, some side content
OoT: medium combat, easy-medium puzzles, some side content
MM: slightly harder than OoT's combat, difficult puzzles, tons of side content
OoS/OoA: surprisingly difficult combat, difficult puzzles, tons of side content
WW: easy combat, easy puzzles, lots of side content
FS: Who cares, it's a party game, a very very fun one too.
FSA: Ditto.
MC: easy combat, medium-hard puzzles, lots of side content
TP: easy combat, medium-hard puzzles, lots of side content
PH: easy combat, medium puzzles, some side content
ST: easy combat, medium-hard puzzles, lots of side content
SS: medium-hard combat, easy-medium puzzles, lots of side content
I included content because it really doesn't matter how easy or hard a game is if it has a lot of content.
And even then, a lot of the easier games with not much content are considered classics, so none of this really works as a gauge of quality. Design is very important.
easy/hard is a false dichotomy anyway. Some games are easy in some ways and difficult in others (no one would ever accuse Touhou of being obscurist about how its mechanics work). BioShock's not particularly difficult in any way I can think of but the gameplay is also not the point of BioShock (which is probably why the gameplay in the series is so godawful). Thus, we can say that BioShock's most easily recognizable flaw isn't that it's a narrative-based game, it's that it's a narrative-based game with a lot of superfluous gameplay that feels tacked on and isn't very good.
We can then criticize the narrative but that's a different post altogether.
also gameplay needs to be challenging but it does not necessarily need to be hard, there's a difference. In some games the entire challenge is just learning how the game works (eg. Dwarf Fortress).
the original SNES game (one of only two I've actually played) is challenging, it's just not difficult. The main obstacle to the player is learning what the different absorbed abilities do and when to best use them.
ok well I guess you're a puzzle savant of some sort
in any case the challenge in Portal is learning how to use the titular portals effectively.
Every game has to have some kind of linear knowledge or skill acquirement for it to be challenging, and there are definitely a fair amount of games that don't have that (nor does a game having it make it automatically good). Challenging =/= Hard.
As for a game that isn't challenging, I realize it's an old horse to beat, but many entries in the Call of Duty franchise comes to mind. There is generally no progression in terms of what you have to know in order to play those games competently, if you've played a semitactical FPS ever, you're already as good as you need to be. Multiplayer is a different beast, but I'm speaking of the single player campaigns here.
BioShock has the nominal challenge of learning how the plasmids work, unrelatedly.
If the game were any harder it would make it worse. That's why the Vitachambers are there; the designers realized that if the game were prohibitively difficult it would detract from the story.
If the game were any harder it would make it worse. That's why the Vitachambers are there; the designers realized that if the game were prohibitively difficult it would detract from the story.
This is precisely why they should have made it some other kind of game. I realize that company politics prevent that kind of innovation at a triple-A level, but if we're speaking strictly about quality, that's a big reason a lot of people don't like BioShock. Certainly a reason I don't.
It couldn't have been any other game; it was specifically intended to satirize FPSs, which I know is something you hate with a burning passion but that's not an inherent flaw.
It couldn't have been any other game; it was specifically intended to satirize FPSs, which I know is something you hate with a burning passion but that's not an inherent flaw.
it fails at that too but that's a problem of narrative.
If they were going to make it an FPS, they should have made it a good one. Doubly so if they were intending to satirize the genre.
I've seen excellent takedowns of a lot of genres, but most people inclined to criticize the First-Person Shooter don't actually seem to understand why people play them in the first place.
actually the best parody (satire is a strong word here) of FPSes I've seen is Cod of Duty.
More people have said that and been killed than there are thorium decay products.
Look, I get that you only really play games for the gameplay and more specifically because they're challenging, but why can't you accept that some games have good narratives and aren't just trying to imitate movies? Because one of the many reasons Bioshock is lauded is because it has almost no cutscenes. All story information is presented within the context of the game.
Even if you took out all of the story content, the game would be 99% the same, except you wouldn't feel bad when you kill the little girls. That was my point. Also I don't play games because they are hard. I just don't find games fun where you do the same boring thing and always win.
Because having frustrating punishments for failure would make the game worse. I agree that Bioshock is, on the whole, pretty easy due to this mechanic but it ultimately betters the game. Harsh punishments for death would totally break the flow of the game.
I don't know what this means? Bioshock is a game where there is zero risk and it is impossible to fail. There are no puzzles to make up for this. Boringgggggg. If it was supposed to be an interactive museum exhibit then they should have just taken out all the gameplay.
bluh bluh zelda puzzles
If a puzzle can only be solved the same way every time, and by knowing the solution beforehand, it hardly deserves to be called a puzzle. If reading a guide renders a game effortless, then it is an easy game.
easy/hard is a false dichotomy anyway. Some games are easy in some ways and difficult in others (no one would ever accuse Touhou of being obscurist about how its mechanics work). BioShock's not particularly difficult in any way I can think of but the gameplay is also not the point of BioShock (which is probably why the gameplay in the series is so godawful).
It couldn't have been any other game; it was specifically intended to satirize FPSs, which I know is something you hate with a burning passion but that's not an inherent flaw.
it fails at that too but that's a problem of narrative.
Last time we discussed this you made it abundantly clear that you only really remembered the latter third of the game which is the part everyone agrees is terrible.
If they were going to make it an FPS, they should have made it a good one.
You seem to be misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm saying it is good.
I've seen excellent takedowns of a lot of genres, but most people inclined to criticize the First-Person Shooter don't actually seem to understand why people play them in the first place.
Because they're a power fantasy. At its most basic level, that's why. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but many of them have pretty unfortunate implications in addition to that. The unfortunate implications are what Bioshock satirizes.
It couldn't have been any other game; it was specifically intended to satirize FPSs, which I know is something you hate with a burning passion but that's not an inherent flaw.
it fails at that too but that's a problem of narrative.
Last time we discussed this you made it abundantly clear that you only really remembered the latter third of the game which is the part everyone agrees is terrible.
that speaks more to the quality of the first two parts than that of the third.
I've seen excellent takedowns of a lot of genres, but most people inclined to criticize the First-Person Shooter don't actually seem to understand why people play them in the first place.
Because they're a power fantasy. At its most basic level, that's why. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but many of them have pretty unfortunate implications in addition to that. The unfortunate implications are what Bioshock satirizes.
no one ever plays anything *because it's a power fantasy*, and that is what 99% of attempted FPS satires fail to understand. They are built around preconceptions of the player, not the realities of the games being played.
Look, I get that you only really play games for the gameplay and more specifically because they're challenging, but why can't you accept that some games have good narratives and aren't just trying to imitate movies? Because one of the many reasons Bioshock is lauded is because it has almost no cutscenes. All story information is presented within the context of the game.
Even if you took out all of the story content, the game would be 99% the same, except you wouldn't feel bad when you kill the little girls. That was my point.
This is very very wrong. I'm honestly astounded. Are you insinuating that any game's story is worthless? Because if there's any game that is dominated by its story, it's Bioshock.
Because having frustrating punishments for failure would make the game worse. I agree that Bioshock is, on the whole, pretty easy due to this mechanic but it ultimately betters the game. Harsh punishments for death would totally break the flow of the game.
I don't know what this means? Bioshock is a game where there is zero risk and it is impossible to fail. There are no puzzles to make up for this. Boringgggggg. If it was supposed to be an interactive museum exhibit then they should have just taken out all the gameplay.
You don't seem to "get" narrative games. This is like saying "if you want to see a movie for the story, just read the Wikipedia article!"
If a puzzle can only be solved the same way every time, and by knowing the solution beforehand, it hardly deserves to be called a puzzle. If reading a guide renders a game effortless, then it is an easy game.
"If you read a guide and that makes a puzzle easy, it's not a difficult puzzle."
If a puzzle can only be solved the same way every time, and by knowing the solution beforehand, it hardly deserves to be called a puzzle. If reading a guide renders a game effortless, then it is an easy game.
You realize that actual, physical puzzles can also be solved in this way? That's a very strange way to qualify "easy".
no one ever plays anything *because it's a power fantasy*, and that is what 99% of attempted FPS satires fail to understand. They are built around preconceptions of the player, not the realities of the games being played.
You play an FPS because it's fun and makes you feel powerful.
1. That's not a problem.
2. I don't understand why that's such a sticking point with you.
This is very very wrong. I'm honestly astounded. Are you insinuating that any game's story is worthless? Because if there's any game that is dominated by its story, it's Bioshock.
no, it's Dear Esther. Which is also not a great game but for entirely different reasons.
BioShock tries to be driven by its story but there is so much (and so mediocre) gameplay that it distracts one immensely from it. If I am playing a game and am handed a gun and told to shoot things, I assume the game is going to be about shooting things, not why Ayn Rand is bad. It'd be like trying to turn Super Meatboy into vegan propaganda.
This is very very wrong. I'm honestly astounded. Are you insinuating that any game's story is worthless? Because if there's any game that is dominated by its story, it's Bioshock.
no, it's Dear Esther. Which is also not a great game but for entirely different reasons.
BioShock tries to be driven by its story but there is so much (and so mediocre) gameplay that it distracts one immensely from it. If I am playing a game and am handed a gun and told to shoot things, I assume the game is going to be about shooting things, not why Ayn Rand is bad. It'd be like trying to turn Super Meatboy into vegan propaganda.
no one ever plays anything *because it's a power fantasy*, and that is what 99% of attempted FPS satires fail to understand. They are built around preconceptions of the player, not the realities of the games being played.
You play an FPS because it's fun and makes you feel powerful.
1. That's not a problem.
2. I don't understand why that's such a sticking point with you.
I am not disagreeing with that point, but it applies to many many many genres of game. Puzzlers make you feel smart, Grand Strategy games make you feel commanding, Roguelikes make you feel clever, Shmups make you feel skillful. Etc. etc. etc. etc.
the assumption that is made is that that is somehow exclusive to FPSes and that FPSes are somehow bad for it, or that the two are somehow linked.
This is very very wrong. I'm honestly astounded. Are you insinuating that any game's story is worthless? Because if there's any game that is dominated by its story, it's Bioshock.
no, it's Dear Esther. Which is also not a great game but for entirely different reasons.
BioShock tries to be driven by its story but there is so much (and so mediocre) gameplay that it distracts one immensely from it. If I am playing a game and am handed a gun and told to shoot things, I assume the game is going to be about shooting things, not why Ayn Rand is bad. It'd be like trying to turn Super Meatboy into vegan propaganda.
That's how satire works.
That's how it works if it works, but BioShock didn't. I've avoided criticizing the narrative because it's not really a topic I want to get into, but suffice it to say if the message of your satire strikes me as dumb or hypocritical, it's failed as a satire in my eyes.
I wasn't saying that, just that FPSes are very popular and their contribution to the culture of violence makes them a very viable target for satire.
What Bioshock was mainly targeting was the railroading done by them- not necessarily the players for being railroaded- and how little it makes sense from a human standpoint.
I wasn't saying that, just that FPSes are very popular and their contribution to the culture of violence makes them a very viable target for satire.
What Bioshock was mainly targeting was the railroading done by them- not necessarily the players for being railroaded- and how little it makes sense from a human standpoint.
Yeah but you don't say "railroading is bad" and then railroad someone.
I understand it from an attempted satirical perspective but as a game it makes it worse and less fun. If you had been able to somehow affect the game's outcome it would've been a worse satire (not that it's a great one as-is) but a better game.
More people have said that and been killed than there are thorium decay products.
Are you insinuating that any game's story is worthless?
Unless part of the game is interacting with the story in a meaningful way (which very, very few games have) then the story is just a decoration, no matter how much story content there is. A story can still be good or even add to the game, if it doesn't try to strangle it.
This is like saying "if you want to see a movie for the story, just read the Wikipedia article!"
But that is exactly what I do. :o
"If you read a guide and that makes a puzzle easy, it's not a difficult puzzle."
Yup. My idea of a puzzle is unpredictable, like a chess game, or a randomly-generated number puzzle, or something like Tetris where you have react to many different possibilities.
Comments
We can then criticize the narrative but that's a different post altogether.
the original SNES game (one of only two I've actually played) is challenging, it's just not difficult. The main obstacle to the player is learning what the different absorbed abilities do and when to best use them.
no. what.
did we play the same game
in any case the challenge in Portal is learning how to use the titular portals effectively.
Every game has to have some kind of linear knowledge or skill acquirement for it to be challenging, and there are definitely a fair amount of games that don't have that (nor does a game having it make it automatically good). Challenging =/= Hard.
As for a game that isn't challenging, I realize it's an old horse to beat, but many entries in the Call of Duty franchise comes to mind. There is generally no progression in terms of what you have to know in order to play those games competently, if you've played a semitactical FPS ever, you're already as good as you need to be. Multiplayer is a different beast, but I'm speaking of the single player campaigns here.
BioShock has the nominal challenge of learning how the plasmids work, unrelatedly.
If they were going to make it an FPS, they should have made it a good one. Doubly so if they were intending to satirize the genre.
I've seen excellent takedowns of a lot of genres, but most people inclined to criticize the First-Person Shooter don't actually seem to understand why people play them in the first place.
actually the best parody (satire is a strong word here) of FPSes I've seen is Cod of Duty.
You seem to be misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm saying it is good. Because they're a power fantasy. At its most basic level, that's why. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but many of them have pretty unfortunate implications in addition to that. The unfortunate implications are what Bioshock satirizes.
You don't seem to "get" narrative games. This is like saying "if you want to see a movie for the story, just read the Wikipedia article!" "If you read a guide and that makes a puzzle easy, it's not a difficult puzzle."
no, it's Dear Esther. Which is also not a great game but for entirely different reasons.
BioShock tries to be driven by its story but there is so much (and so mediocre) gameplay that it distracts one immensely from it. If I am playing a game and am handed a gun and told to shoot things, I assume the game is going to be about shooting things, not why Ayn Rand is bad. It'd be like trying to turn Super Meatboy into vegan propaganda.
the assumption that is made is that that is somehow exclusive to FPSes and that FPSes are somehow bad for it, or that the two are somehow linked. That's how it works if it works, but BioShock didn't. I've avoided criticizing the narrative because it's not really a topic I want to get into, but suffice it to say if the message of your satire strikes me as dumb or hypocritical, it's failed as a satire in my eyes.
Terry Cavanaugh's new game is a puzzler. I have to look up the title real quick though because I keep forgetting it.
The basic mechanic is easy enough to grasp but it's a very difficult game. Yeah but you don't say "railroading is bad" and then railroad someone.
I understand it from an attempted satirical perspective but as a game it makes it worse and less fun. If you had been able to somehow affect the game's outcome it would've been a worse satire (not that it's a great one as-is) but a better game.