By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Are most games good?

Tagged games:

 

Out of 10, most games average...

9-10 0 0%
 
8-9 8 6.67%
 
7-8 28 23.33%
 
6-7 31 25.83%
 
5-6 22 18.33%
 
4-5 9 7.50%
 
3-4 4 3.33%
 
2-3 3 2.50%
 
1-2 6 5.00%
 
See results 9 7.50%
 
Total:120

I do think that today most games are good. Well.... at least technically good.

We don´t see today many broken games like we saw in the past, be them broken in level design, mechanics or controls. Of course it still happens, but it doesn´t seem so alarming like it was in the 8-bit era.

I just think that many games lack some kind of "soul" or personality, specially in the art style. We have too many games with similar visuals today, specially those with "realistic" visuals.

And we have a much, much angrier and toxic gaming community today. Many players are always moaning and groaning and detracting some good games due to small things or just for dumb fanboyism. It seems that players today do not enjoy gaming like those from the 80´s and 90´s.



Around the Network
Veknoid_Outcast said:
Mummelmann said:
Most games are mediocre, I'd say that about 30-40% of the games that I try are good in my opinion and then there are hundreds that you simply don't even want to try.
Then again; many games are objectively good even though I don't like them. But I still feel like the majority of games are mediocre, just as with music, movies and books, most broader entertainment is mediocre, but it's still entertainment.

Can you expand on that idea of objectively good? I know you can objectively measure things like frame rate, resolution, available modes, etc. But how do you judge gameplay without using your personal opinion?

Well, for instance, if we use music as an example, I could make a fairly good case for why Michael Jackson is the greatest artist who ever lived. He had an amazing voice, wrote his own awesome lyrics, he did coreography and danced like a god, produced and sold tens of millions of albums. Yet, he's not my favorite artist, not even close.

Other example; Steve Jobs, I never liked and I never liked Apple products, objectively though, I still respect his salesmanship even if he could never sell anything to me, his merits speak for himself.

Civilization games, loved them since childhood but they have taken a turn for the worse for me since they've been diluted and simplified a couple of times now and I find myself no longer wanting to play them. As an easier introduction into a heavy and complicated genre though, it's still a good series objectively speaking and the gameplay is still good even if some of the mechanics I enjoyed are gone or simplified.

I really don't enjoy the Harry Potter books, tried reading three, found them childish and whacky compared to the more focused fantasy I'm used to since childhood, but I still recognize the series' objective worth by appreciating the prose and seeing its impact on culture and a whole generation of people.

I see some things as objectively good, even though I don't personally find them highly entertaining. I remember working at a Rihanna concert, I can't stand her music, but the show was spectacular and she had an amazing voice live, so I still appreciate that she's objectively a good performer.

Does it make any sense to you? I find myself thinking more and more like this and it's making my whole life easier, it's especially important that I learn how to think this way through my current job, where being objective is extremely important in most situations.



Mummelmann said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:

Can you expand on that idea of objectively good? I know you can objectively measure things like frame rate, resolution, available modes, etc. But how do you judge gameplay without using your personal opinion?

Well, for instance, if we use music as an example, I could make a fairly good case for why Michael Jackson is the greatest artist who ever lived. He had an amazing voice, wrote his own awesome lyrics, he did coreography and danced like a god, produced and sold tens of millions of albums. Yet, he's not my favorite artist, not even close.

Other example; Steve Jobs, I never liked and I never liked Apple products, objectively though, I still respect his salesmanship even if he could never sell anything to me, his merits speak for himself.

Civilization games, loved them since childhood but they have taken a turn for the worse for me since they've been diluted and simplified a couple of times now and I find myself no longer wanting to play them. As an easier introduction into a heavy and complicated genre though, it's still a good series objectively speaking and the gameplay is still good even if some of the mechanics I enjoyed are gone or simplified.

I really don't enjoy the Harry Potter books, tried reading three, found them childish and whacky compared to the more focused fantasy I'm used to since childhood, but I still recognize the series' objective worth by appreciating the prose and seeing its impact on culture and a whole generation of people.

I see some things as objectively good, even though I don't personally find them highly entertaining. I remember working at a Rihanna concert, I can't stand her music, but the show was spectacular and she had an amazing voice live, so I still appreciate that she's objectively a good performer.

Does it make any sense to you? I find myself thinking more and more like this and it's making my whole life easier, it's especially important that I learn how to think this way through my current job, where being objective is extremely important in most situations.

Thanks! And I definitely see what you're saying. But I'm still unsure. It's possible to objectively measure things like concert tickets sold or cultural impact, but I still think game design or artistic design falls outside those empirical data points. I think we can call games objectively popular or successful but I don't think we can ever call them objectively "good." That beauty, or lack thereof, is in the eyes of the beholder.

Even if we note that game A conforms to established norms of game design greatness, we have to look at who set those norms: a collection of people with specific tastes and priorities.



Yes, most games are good. It's down to personal preference in the end. I mean the latest CoD is a well made game, it doesn't have noticeable glitches and is playable but does that means it's enjoyable to me? Well no, i played the beta, it was dull and boring compared to the last entry but overall, it's probably a good game.

People might moan about the lack of content in Overwatch or Street Fighter 5 but they are good games. People moaned about the fetch quests in Dragon Age Inquisition yet it was a good game.

Yet, it seems a 7 is average now in game reviews, anything graded as 5/10 is a poor game. It's an odd thing really. Personal perception gets in the way a lot.



Hmm, pie.

Most games I play are good.



Around the Network

Most games are at least playable but most games do not appeal to me for a number of reasons, what I enjoy is only a small fraction of the total. For example, FarCry 3 to me seems like a pretty polished game and it's very playable but for the life of me I just could not enjoy it. Overall, most games are probably just average, in the sense that they're at least technically functional but your enjoyment may vary..