Top 5 Stupidest Things To Criticize Video Games For

ElectroYoshi · Post by **ElectroYoshi** » June 28th, 2013, 10:04 pm

OK, so we all know that there are some stupid reasons to hate a video game. I'm here to explain why those things are stupid things to judge.

And we're off!

5. Lack of voice acting
What it means: Game characters not speaking actual dialogue, instead having their dialogue written at the bottom of the screen.
Why it's not valid: Good news bad news time. The good news is that voice acting can work pretty well. But the bad news is that voice acting can work pretty well, meaning it doesn't always. Think about this scene from Skyward Sword. That scene started out heartwarming, but turned bittersweet, making it quite an emotional moment in the game. Can you honestly look me dead in the eyes and tell me with a straight face that voice acting wouldn't have made that scene insanely cheesy? If you could make out every little word that Link and Zelda were saying, it wouldn't completely kill the effect? The bottom line is that while voice acting can work, it's not a general rule for it to.

4. Clunky Unintuitive Controls
What it means: Controls that aren't instinctive at first.
Why it's not valid: Controls become more natural the more you use them. Super Mario 64 didn't have a very practical control scheme (Moving with the Analog Stick, which was planted in the center of the controller, for example), but it wouldn't have been hard to adjust to, because it would've become more of a natural instinct the more you played the game. Obviously, some controllers are better designed than others (see: GameCube controller), but it's less a matter of bad choices on the developers' part, and more a matter of getting used to the bizarre aspects of the controls.

3. Not mature
What it means: "For babies" or "for little kids" (Nintendo in particular receive this insult quite often, but you will see it applied to other companies sometimes too).
Why it's not valid: Your average CoD fanboy thinks he's "hardcore" and "adult" simply because he plays a lot of violent video games. Now let's think about the kinds of things you see in a lot violent games like CoD or GTA. What comes to mind? Shooting like crazy, Stealing cars, Suggestive moments, Breaking into top-secret facilities, stuff like that, right? You know what all those things have in common? They're all illegal in real life. CoD, GTA fanboys who like doing those things in the games would never be dumb enough to do it real life. Ya know why? BECAUSE THEY WOULD GO TO JAIL FOR IT!!! Carjacking, break-ins, prison--Call me crazy, but I'm pretty freaking sure that's not how most adults live their lives.

Also, I can't help but feel that people who play games specifically so they can do things like this in-game are playing video games for the wrong reason. Video games are often used as a way of escaping the real world. If I'm frustrated about something, I go beat the crap out of people in Smash Bros. to let it out and forget my problems for a little while. This is why I think Grand Theft Auto is overrated. It just doesn't provide the escape I look for, and I feel my money is better spent elsewhere.

2. Hardware that's not up to date
What it means: Self Explanatory
Why it's not valid: The hardware is behind. So what? If it still runs smoothly and the game still functions well with it, why does it matter whether it's up caught up with modern electronics or not? The Wii's hardware didn't exactly kick it into overdrive, but it was the best-selling console of the last console cycle. So if updated hardware matters, care to explain that? Uh-huh. That's what I thought. And now, the moment you've all been waiting for...

ElectroYoshi · Post by **ElectroYoshi** » June 28th, 2013, 10:04 pm

1. Bad Graphics
What it means: Another self explanatory one
Why it's not valid: OK, Why do I even need to elaborate on this!? GRAPHICS DON'T MATTER!!!! I can't emphasize it enough. Graphics do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to improve or impede on the overall experience. Halo would be no different if it had been on the NES because while the graphics wouldn't have been nearly as good, the core mechanics of the game wouldn't have changed in the slightest (I know a lot more would've had to change for a drastic transition like that, but work with me here, OK?). I hate Majora's Mask, but HD graphics wouldn't change that becasue the gameplay mechanics would stay exactly the same.

If you have any more you think I should add, feel free to post them below.

ElectroYoshi · Post by **ElectroYoshi** » June 28th, 2013, 10:20 pm

Reserved

matthewbny · Post by **matthewbny** » June 28th, 2013, 11:37 pm

You should add a 6th one being the "oh it has illegal stuff so you're going to do that stuff to" like seriously, video games have been around since World War II and you're going to play that card? I mean sure it's happened before but you're going to blame it on a few incidents? Besides, you can't always believe someone's motive in a case. Sure, they are reliable, but only to a certain degree which of course varies from case to case.

Miniike · Post by **Miniike** » June 29th, 2013, 5:07 am

Nice list! Very well written.

Although with Majora's Mask, they COULD improve on the save system by getting rid of those gosh awful owl statues. The 3-day mechanic would still be there, but that's subjective. I found it quite interesting, it helped build tension and emotion, and gave a challenging spin to the dungeons. The Inverted song of Time is all over the place now though, so it's not like you'll ever run out of time...

Post by **Wowfunhappy** » June 29th, 2013, 8:13 am

ElectroYoshi wrote:

ElectroYoshi wrote: 4. Clunky Controls
What it means: Controls that aren't instinctive at first.

Oh, believe me, I can find you pleeenty of games that have genuinely clunky controls that will never feel right, not just unintuitive ones that take some getting used to.

Also, personally, I don't want to spend the first three hours of a game wresting with controls until I get used to them. If it makes for a better control scheme in the long run (ex: Kid Icarus: Uprising, which is amazing btw), then fine, but intuitive controls are always preferable.

ElectroYoshi wrote: 1. Bad Graphics
Why it's not valid: OK, Why do I even need to elaborate on this? GRAPHICS DON'T MATTER!!!!

Graphics matter insofar as how they are able to better a game's aesthetics. Aesthetics, however, ALWAYS matter. See video:
[media=youtube]5oK8UTRgvJU[/media]

Post by **Phantomboy** » June 29th, 2013, 11:35 am

Yes the whole "mature" thing is quite strange. Maybe it is just me coming from playing mostly stylized platformers and puzzles games, perhaps my I am just immature when it comes to game styles. However I never found "high-realism" war games that interesting. Don't get me wrong they aren't bad - just not my thing really.

ElectroYoshi · Post by **ElectroYoshi** » June 29th, 2013, 12:23 pm

Wowfunhappy wrote: Oh, believe me, I can find you pleeenty of games that have genuinely clunky controls that will never feel right, not just unintuitive ones that take some getting used to.

True, I will admit that I've used control schemes that I never really got the hang of *cough*sidewayswiiremotecontrolsinbrawl*cough* but that's more of an occasional exception than a general rule.

matthewbny wrote:You should add a 6th one being the "oh it has illegal stuff so you're going to do that stuff to" like seriously, video games have been around since World War II and you're going to play that card? I mean sure it's happened before but you're going to blame it on a few incidents? Besides, you can't always believe someone's motive in a case. Sure, they are reliable, but only to a certain degree which of course varies from case to case.

I covered that in #3.

tta · Post by **tta** » June 29th, 2013, 3:03 pm

I agree with EVERYTHING here except for #4.

AtmoMario · Post by **AtmoMario** » June 30th, 2013, 5:28 pm

ElectroYoshi wrote:Halo would be just as good if it had been on the NES because while the graphics wouldn't have been nearly as good, the core mechanics of the game wouldn't have changed in the slightest.

I'm pretty sure that if Halo were on the NES, there would have to be more changes than just the graphics. The Xbox was at least 2 generations of consoles after the NES, so that would make a very major difference in terms of hardware and what it is capable of.

As my opinion on #5, just think back to the games that Nintendo pretends never happened. You know which ones: the ones on the CDi. Voice acting at its worst.

Controls can make a very big difference. It is almost universally accepted that the best way to play a real-time strategy game is with a keyboard. The RTS genre just takes a lot of specific button inputs, and no other control method can compete with the variety of a keyboard. Any time an RTS gets ported to (or worse, made for) a console, people always complain about the lack of a keyboard. It breaks the experience of the games, where you can control everything very quickly. Bad controls cause bad immersion.

The main problem with video games and "maturity" is that people seem to think that playing games meant for older people is something to be proud of. The problem is with the way people think. I have no problem playing higher rated games as long as I find them worth playing.

Hardware can make a difference, but the difference it makes isn't as important now as it used to be. Modern consoles are all close enough in terms of technology that they can all do pretty much the same stuff, it will just look different. Imagine if somebody tried making a modern console that was unable to use polygons. At all. This would severely cripple what it could do. Modern consoles aren't innovating enough for the hardware gap to make a difference. Sure the Wii U has the gamepad, the Xbox 360/One have the Kinect, etc., but what is the likelihood that these innovations will completely change the way games are played forever? Until somebody finds a way to revolutionize the industry, hardware makes little difference.

Although given that I don't have a lot of games that I really enjoy that were released at any point after about 2002, what do I know about modern hardware and how it relates to gaming?

winningkill · Post by **winningkill** » July 1st, 2013, 12:57 pm

Is it stupid to criticize video games for bad sequel.

ElectroYoshi · Post by **ElectroYoshi** » July 1st, 2013, 4:25 pm

winningkill wrote:Is it stupid to criticize video games for bad sequel.

Yeah, it really kind of is. I'll add that if I get a chance later.

Post by **Phantomboy** » July 1st, 2013, 8:09 pm

What about unfair comparisons for games that are released after it. For instance comparing The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion to it's successor Skyrim and saying that it isn't "as technically advanced."

Prime · Post by **Prime** » July 1st, 2013, 11:36 pm

Lack of voice acting - Yea, dumb reason.
Clunky controls - This is a perfectly adequate reason to hate a video game.
Not mature - Also a dumb reason.
Hardware that's not up to date - This is a dumb reason most of the time
Bad graphics - Graphics actually do matter, but just not a whole lot. Like Wowfun said, aesthetics. ^-^

ElectroYoshi · Post by **ElectroYoshi** » July 1st, 2013, 11:45 pm

OK, maybe "clunky" wasn't the right word. I'm gonna have to change that...

Post by **SirWrek** » July 3rd, 2013, 7:06 am

ElectroYoshi wrote:1. Bad Graphics
What it means: Another self explanatory one
Why it's not valid: OK, Why do I even need to elaborate on this!? GRAPHICS DON'T MATTER!!!! I can't emphasize it enough. Graphics do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to improve or impede on the overall experience. Halo would be no different if it had been on the NES because while the graphics wouldn't have been nearly as good, the core mechanics of the game wouldn't have changed in the slightest (I know a lot more would've had to change for a drastic transition like that, but work with me here, OK?). I hate Majora's Mask, but HD graphics wouldn't change that becasue the gameplay mechanics would stay exactly the same.

If you have any more you think I should add, feel free to post them below.

Indeed. That is why Animal Crossing and Monster Hunter are beloved by many, myself included.

They might not have the best graphics, but who cares? Sure, seeing top of the line graphics is cool and showcases just what wonders we can and have achieved, but it isn't always necessary.

winningkill · Post by **winningkill** » July 3rd, 2013, 9:41 am

How about "Missing something". lol

thelegendary · Post by **thelegendary** » July 3rd, 2013, 11:27 pm

After watching multiple "reviews" from multiple "critics" this is the list that I've came up with.

1. Ratchet and Clank FTOD's gameplay has too much variety.
2. In Infamous 2 the screen is black and white too often.
3. The jump button in Sonic Unleashed is too unresponsive.
4. DmC's Jump canceling doesn't work as well as the other games.
5. Anyone that gave Postal 2 a low score for moral reasons.
6. Megaman X8's controls are too responsive.

Miniike · Post by **Miniike** » July 6th, 2013, 7:41 am

thelegendary wrote: 5. Anyone that gave Postal 2 a low score for moral reasons.

Wait...why...who...

MINIIKE IS NOT AMUSED BY THESE REVIEWERS.

ElectroYoshi · Post by **ElectroYoshi** » July 6th, 2013, 11:34 am

thelegendary wrote:After watching multiple "reviews" from multiple "critics" this is the list that I've came up with.

1. Ratchet and Clank FTOD's gameplay has too much variety.
2. In Infamous 2 the screen is black and white too often.
3. The jump button in Sonic Unleashed is too unresponsive.
4. DmC's Jump canceling doesn't work as well as the other games.
5. Anyone that gave Postal 2 a low score for moral reasons.
6. Megaman X8's controls are too responsive.

Miniike wrote:MINIIKE IS NOT AMUSED BY THESE REVIEWERS.

Most video game critics are idiots, OK? All there is to it.