Currently Online 
Runa216 said:
IT's not about 'not liking what I don't like', it's about the game fundamentally breaking itself to become what it is. It's about failing to do the things it sets out to do. It's about the game not succeeding at its most critical points. I hate Grand Theft Auto V and I don't personally see the appeal of most MOBAs and MMOs and online shooters and realistic racing sims, but I totally get why people like them. I see the appeal, I see the quality, I know they're great for what they are and I try my best to not get involved because it's not my area of interest/expertise. But with stuff like Skyward Sword (And Dark Souls II and Final Fantasy XIII and a handful of others), they ARE in my wheel house, I DO know and understand a lot about what makes them tick, and I have a semi-professional take on the matter that makes it clear these games fundamentally failed. Y'all need to stop disregarding proper assessment and critique as 'just, like, your opinion, man'. So many people misconstrue subjective opinions with objective reality. You can't just ignore a game's flaws and pretend like people identifying these flaws is the same as being a hater or some immature nonsense. It's not very conducive to a proper discussion in any way. The game's controls - the most important element of the game's ability to...be played - are fundamentally flawed for an entirely too-large percentage of people. They didn't work as intended. The puzzles didn't register as intended. some people had no problems with them or could work around the problems but a lot of people hate the game because the controls were fundamentally broken and flawed and didn't work. this isn't a matter of opinion, this is an instance where a game's core mechanic is inconsistent and that ruins the experience for far too many people. If it didn't break for you, good for you, it broke for me and I played the game for 20+ hours. Every single combat encounter and every single puzzle was a chore of random chance, luck, and frustration. Zelda is an adventure game. that is its genre. the core concept behind the franchise's appeal is the idea that you're exploring a world and gradually opening it up as you get new items and new abilities. Fi ruins all that. "There's a 94% chance that you should go this direction and do this". That's not an adventure, that's a zelda game that may have well been on rails. I'm all for making games accessible, and anyone with a heart and brain should agree that allowing these options is important, but there's a world of difference between offering an option and halting the game every 30 seconds to force a dialogue explanation that tells you what you already figured out before you go do it. It's overly intrusive conveyance and completely counterintuitive to what the game is trying to do. As for the writing and dialogue, I liked what they were trying to do but it was pretty bland, generic, and poorly written. Bad writing can still be fun and appealing (Hell, my most popular short stories are almost always the ones I put the least amount of thought into the dialogue), but you can't pretend it's not bad. All in all, you need to stop conflating subjective opinions with objective reality. That's exactly why we still have anti-vaxxers and flat earthers who think their opinions are as valid as the science they oppose. |
, a game you dislike can have virtues that other people value a lot, you know?Runa, I appreciate your passionate opinion on the matter, but I think you need to take your own advice, and not conflate subjective opinion with objective reality.
We can measure the success rate of a vaccine or the circumference of the Earth, but there's no way to objectively calculate how "good" a game is. Because that goodness is based on personal priority and expectation.
You can point to commonly-accepted standards of excellence, but those were assembled by many different individuals, all with their own preferences.
