CGI-Quality said:
But to call it "bad" you'd have to name what's bad about it. And then it would have to be proven factually to be "bad": Graphics - though subjective, could be used if the game just doesn't compete well on a visual level with other games in a said gen. Fracture wasn't visually "bad" IMO. Game play - again, subjective as one man's rags is another man's riches. Story - Ok, IMO, generic as ever, but someone out there liked it. How can I argue with them factually on this? Controls - Usually not opinionated, but Fracture was very basic. Not too confusing. Now, it had it's share of innovations, though it did get a little redundant. But what I've described here is mainly opinions. If the game was buggy, laggy, or on a bad code, then it could be seen as a bad title. Then again, some of the best games this gen are buggy messes, so even that could be seen as subjective. Is Fracture the best game that I've played, no, far from it. Doesn't mean it's a fact that it's bad. If you said it was "critically" and commercially a failure, there's no argument there. |
Graphics are not subjective. Art style is. You also need to factor framerate, pop-in, screen tearing, etc. All detrimental things that can not be ignored.
Gameplay isn't as full of objective things, but there are plenty of design choices you can pick apart. Repeititive and Reduncy are something you can mention as faults. (as you did in this post)
Story is very tough. You can judge it as a whole (how well written is it), etc. I am not very qualified to judge how well written that is, in great detail of course, as I'm an business student and know little on formal writing.
And listen. I'm NOT (edited. Thanks xxain) saying a bad game is a failure. I love countless bad games, and I don't want to associate the word "failure" with sub-par or bad.
