| Mazty said: I've played the games and have been playing games for over a decade - I feel that you can logically break down what makes a game good or not. For example NSMBW is good, for kids, but I'd argue that maybe LBP is better, as it offers more functions that children may find fun, such as making your own level and online play. A tech point of view is easy enough to talk about, but I think to break a game into how is it good you have to look at if it is good at all, who does it appeal to, and the final essential point; are there better games out their that appeal to the same people but have more to offer. As a further example someone could agrue Killzone2 is better than MW2, BUT essentially they may not relate to the same audience as the pace is very different, however some things remain fundamental to gaming, such as most gamers do not enjoy having no control other their death, whether it is due to glitches or poor level design. It is in that sense I think you can relatively compare games of roughly the same genre to determine if one is better than another, or if a game is simply good or not. |
That's a very interesting perspective, but let me ask you this: is it not also possible that these games have different qualities that appeal to different people? If people enjoy local multiplayer built around interactions with dynamic environments and AI-controlled enemies in a sidescrolling game, wouldn't New Super Mario Bros Wii be better for that person than Little Big Planet? Keep in mind that I'm including the point of AI-controlled enemies here for a reason, since it's the primary differentiating point between them. Though, I suppose one could argue that World 8 in NSMBWii has more dynamic environments than anything I've played in Little Big Planet.
