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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - What will be 2018's disappointing AAA games?

 

What game will be the most disappointing in 2018?

Shenmue III 23 27.38%
 
Crackdown 3 24 28.57%
 
Red Dead Redemption 2 1 1.19%
 
Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 17 20.24%
 
Battlefield V 1 1.19%
 
Spider-Man 5 5.95%
 
Super Smash Bros. for Switch 4 4.76%
 
Detroit: Become Human 6 7.14%
 
Kingdom Hearts 3 0 0%
 
Other 3 3.57%
 
Total:84
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
Zoombael said:

Something Tomb Raider Something.

 

 

The irony is, you're confirming the original statement, trying to sell peoples personal views as legitimate reviews. We all know what pokoko is talking about, and you're seriously chosing to defend it? Why don't you just say that you don't like this game genre of interactive movie...

Wait ... these people are actual reviewers now??? Now that changes the subject! I don't remember Pokoko saying ANYTHING about reviews.

"Why don't you just say that you don't like this game genre of interactive movie..."

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8766697

It seems you really have a problem with comprehending the written word. 

I said, <b>you</b>, the angryllittlealche, are <b>trying</b> to justify the expected rants about a certain video game genre as legitimate critique/review.

Taking a look at your most wanted list make your words even more preposterous. Just arguing for the sake of argument.



Hunting Season is done...

Around the Network
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
pokoko said:

Yeah, you're not saying anything at all.  Your argument isn't even an argument.  I tell you what I'm talking about and you  pretend it's something else or that I've changed what I've said by expanding on it, all while you avoid even touching the original point.  

I give you the exact argument I'm talking about and your reply is "but they might have legitimate criticisms and arguments".  What does that even mean?  I specifically define the people I'm talking about and then you say I'm generalizing them?  I mean, what?  It's like I say that I'm talking about a group of green aliens and then you say that I shouldn't generalize that group as being green.  It's meaningless.

Read what the other person says then address that, not some point you've invented on your own.

You yourself are already being inconsistent who you're defining. I literally proved that in my last comment. At this point you're just defending yourself by saying I'm making up stuff. Sure, it's REALLY easy to say that someone just isn't addressing your points. It's been done a million times on forums and I've certainly said it before. It's basically the way to get out of any real point, "you just aren't addressing what i'm saying man!"

Well you've already shown that the definition of people you are describing IS loose because you keep changing what exact kind of statements you're referring to. Again, which one is it? A ) An entire crowd of people who are not only negative but also that these people can not possibly fathom how a game in said genre is liked, B ) people who have said games of an entire genre should never be made, C ) particular people who have felt that the cinematic approach has ruined gaming for them. 

See how you ARE generalizing? You changed the point of discussion three times and only connected it by the general idea of people who are negative against a certain genre of games. 

Oh wait, you're just going to say I'm not addressing the point somehow, right? Even though I'm literally showing how you are generalizing and throwing a huge blanket over many different subgroups of people. 

Just because it's been done before doesn't mean it's not true.  All you are proving is that you can win against the arguments you make up yourself.

Let's talk about the "many different subgroups of people" that I'm throwing a huge blanket over.  Let's talk about all these many subgroups exactly.

""omg it's not a game it's a movie" crowd who cannot stand the idea that others might like something they do not."

Now, that's the group I defined in my very first post.  What is the essence of group?  People who do not like cinematic games and do not like that other people can like something they do not enjoy themselves.  I literally specified who I'm talking about.  It's right there.

Now, you say that "people who do not like cinematic games and do not like that other people can like something they do not enjoy themselves" is actually many different subgroups of people.

Uh.

No, it's not.  It's literally a very narrow field.

Okay, then, it's your turn.  Explain to me why "people who do not like cinematic games and do not like that other people can like something they do not enjoy themselves" constitutes a wide range of subgroups.  What are these subgroups?  And how, exactly, am I generalizing "people who do not like cinematic games and do not like that other people can like something they do not enjoy themselves"?

Edit:  Also, I got to say that you not understanding that I did those edits on purpose is pretty funny.

Edit 2:  That was a fake edit.



pokoko said:

 

"Okay, then, it's your turn.  Explain to me why "people who do not like cinematic games and do not like that other people can like something they do not enjoy themselves" constitutes a wide range of subgroups.  What are these subgroups?  And how, exactly, am I generalizing "people who do not like cinematic games and do not like that other people can like something they do not enjoy themselves"?"

Uhh ... I'm not saying it's a bunch of subgroups that identify under that one banner. I am literally saying you are making a blanket statement of a bunch of different groups and putting them under one banner. That's literally my point. And you proved it by changing the definition of what stances we were talking about, three times. I'm not saying those two extra subgroups exist under one larger subgroup. I'm saying that you're throwing all of the different stances of debate under one blanket, which you are. And your counter to that is pretty much "well my original comment said x so it's okay". 

"Edit:  Also, I got to say that you not understanding that I did those edits on purpose is pretty funny."

Huh? Ok, I know we're "arguing" here but I call foul. I never even pointed out that you edited one of your previous comments, or implied it. I knew you edited one of your previous comments on purpose. That's exactly why I didn't point it out. It would be like a literal physical embodiment of Tom walking into a Jerry trap. 



Zoombael said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

Wait ... these people are actual reviewers now??? Now that changes the subject! I don't remember Pokoko saying ANYTHING about reviews.

"Why don't you just say that you don't like this game genre of interactive movie..."

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8766697

It seems you really have a problem with comprehending the written word. 

I said, you, the angryllittlealche, are trying to justify the expected rants about a certain video game genre as legitimate critique/review.

Taking a look at your most wanted list make your words even more preposterous. Just arguing for the sake of argument.

Arguing for the sake of argument does not make you wrong. 

It's funny how you and Pokoko are just defaulting to the classic "you can't comprehend/are twisting what i'm saying!". 

I'll point it out for you:

Your original statement: "The irony is, you're confirming the original statement, trying to sell peoples personal views as legitimate reviews"

Your new statement: "I said, you, the angryllittlealche, are trying to justify the expected rants about a certain video game genre as legitimate critique/review."

You can say I misunderstood your point, in which case my bad. But I took your first statement literally because that's how it's written. Making a critique, analysis, or essay is not the same as being an actual reviewer. So obviously I was going to assume you literally meant "legitimate reviews", because if I didn't take your comment literally you could always point at that and critique me on that basis too. Damned if you do damned if you don't. 

On that note, I find it funny that you devalue my point by saying I must just hate cinematic games, then you devalue my point when I show you that I'm actually excited for the cinematic game in question. Again, damned if you do damned if you don't. Your point that my list somehow makes my argument "preposterous" is not a point, especially when you don't expand on it.



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
pokoko said:

 

"Okay, then, it's your turn.  Explain to me why "people who do not like cinematic games and do not like that other people can like something they do not enjoy themselves" constitutes a wide range of subgroups.  What are these subgroups?  And how, exactly, am I generalizing "people who do not like cinematic games and do not like that other people can like something they do not enjoy themselves"?"

Uhh ... I'm not saying it's a bunch of subgroups that identify under that one banner. I am literally saying you are making a blanket statement of a bunch of different groups and putting them under one banner. That's literally my point. And you proved it by changing the definition of what stances we were talking about, three times. I'm not saying those two extra subgroups exist under one larger subgroup. I'm saying that you're throwing all of the different stances of debate under one blanket, which you are. And your counter to that is pretty much "well my original comment said x so it's okay". 

"Edit:  Also, I got to say that you not understanding that I did those edits on purpose is pretty funny."

Huh? Ok, I know we're "arguing" here but I call foul. I never even pointed out that you edited one of your previous comments, or implied it. I knew you edited one of your previous comments on purpose. That's exactly why I didn't point it out. It would be like a literal physical embodiment of Tom walking into a Jerry trap. 

You're still not saying anything at all.  Nothing but hot air.  Be specific.  Give me details.  What subgroups are you talking about?  Come on, you can do it.  Explain your point.  WHO are all these people you are talking about?  WHO are all these different groups?

And your "three separate times" thing is bullshit because I'm talking about the same group that I defined in my first post.  You aren't making any sense at all.

So, for the last time, EXPLAIN WHO ALL THESE SUBGROUPS ARE.  

I LITERALLY told you who I'm talking about.  I defined it for you in clear English.  Now you do the same.  

If not then, seriously, in perfect honesty, I'm just going to conclude that your reading comprehension is terrible.

 

As far as the editing thing goes, you said "(in which case I do not see what's funny ... especially because you said that two replies after I edited a comment). "  ... or, wait, did you not understand that I was annoyed because I replied to your post before you edited it?  



Around the Network

Sea of Thieves



Predicted 15+ million lifetime-sales for God of War:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=234612&page=1

pokoko said:

You're still not saying anything at all.  Nothing but hot air.  Be specific.  Give me details.  What subgroups are you talking about?  Come on, you can do it.  Explain your point.  WHO are all these people you are talking about?  WHO are all these different groups?

And your "three separate times" thing is bullshit because I'm talking about the same group that I defined in my first post.  You aren't making any sense at all.

So, for the last time, EXPLAIN WHO ALL THESE SUBGROUPS ARE.  

I LITERALLY told you who I'm talking about.  I defined it for you in clear English.  Now you do the same.  

If not then, seriously, in perfect honesty, I'm just going to conclude that your reading comprehension is terrible.

 

As far as the editing thing goes, you said "(in which case I do not see what's funny ... especially because you said that two replies after I edited a comment). "  ... or, wait, did you not understand that I was annoyed because I replied to your post before you edited it?  

You can keep being condescending but I've literally SHOWN what subgroups I'm talking about. 

I'm probably not helping my case by saying "subgroups". They're not really "subgroups" but rather that you keep changing what specific stances you're talking about. Again, I literally already pointed it out. 

"So you went from saying that there is an entire crowd of people who are not only negative but also that these people can not possibly fathom how a game in said genre is liked, to saying these people have said games of an entire genre should never be made, to saying that these particular people have felt that the cinematic approach has ruined gaming for them (or something)."

You changed what stances you were talking about as the discussion kept moving on. Now, you can generalize it as "haters of cinematic games". You can say it's an overarching branch of stances that you are talking about when referring to these haters. But when you change what you are specifically talking about to be different stances, then it becomes an inconsistent basis for discussion. One person might fall into all three, another might just fall into one. It's not a huge blanket group. It's a diverse set of opinions, and that's why I started discussing such things here. It is playing with fire when you specify haters and then change the notion of what a hater is (I know you didn't say "hater" but just let me use the layman term here). It's that kind of stuff that makes 7/10 BOTW or GOW4 reviews "troll reviews". I know that's not what you're saying, thinking, or doing, and I am guessing you are quite tolerant of others opinions. But I find making such a blanket statement of people in a serious discussion to be an issue because it sets up the basis of such statements, where suddenly a whole group of people who aren't haters are. Whatever, maybe I'm just being dumb(probably that). 

....What? All I was saying was that you made that comment about my editing multiple  replies after it happened. I never made a comment about your editing. Nor did the part you quoted have anything to do with why you wrote that part in. All I said in that quote was you wrote it a few replies after I edited. That's all.

Anyways I think one thing we're forgetting is that this entire discussion didn't start about who fits into one group. All I was saying was that I didn't see the connection between disliking something and literally not being able to stand the idea that others might like it. I mean, I've seen some asshole haters in my  time and I've never seen someone who literally cannot fathom how someone can enjoy a specific kind of game. Even people who are in "that crowd". They probably exist though.



I will go out and say its out of Shenmue 3 and Crackdown 3.

Also Sea of Thieves hasn't even lifted off yet. Ill make that judgement on that game after its first 2 patches. If not much gets added than ill class it as a disappointment. I for one am enjoying it for what it is, I need to see the direction it takes first.

Last edited by Azzanation - on 29 April 2018

Watch Dogs and Titanfall were disappointing? Not to me!

Anyways, this year COD sounds like a lock to be disappointing with a supposedly bad multiplayer and no singleplayer. Dunno about the others yet.



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
Zoombael said:

It seems you really have a problem with comprehending the written word. 

I said, you, the angryllittlealche, are trying to justify the expected rants about a certain video game genre as legitimate critique/review.

Taking a look at your most wanted list make your words even more preposterous. Just arguing for the sake of argument.

Arguing for the sake of argument does not make you wrong. 

It's funny how you and Pokoko are just defaulting to the classic "you can't comprehend/are twisting what i'm saying!". 

I'll point it out for you:

Your original statement: "The irony is, you're confirming the original statement, trying to sell peoples personal views as legitimate reviews"

Your new statement: "I said, you, the angryllittlealche, are trying to justify the expected rants about a certain video game genre as legitimate critique/review."

You can say I misunderstood your point, in which case my bad. But I took your first statement literally because that's how it's written. Making a critique, analysis, or essay is not the same as being an actual reviewer. So obviously I was going to assume you literally meant "legitimate reviews", because if I didn't take your comment literally you could always point at that and critique me on that basis too. Damned if you do damned if you don't. 

On that note, I find it funny that you devalue my point by saying I must just hate cinematic games, then you devalue my point when I show you that I'm actually excited for the cinematic game in question. Again, damned if you do damned if you don't. Your point that my list somehow makes my argument "preposterous" is not a point, especially when you don't expand on it.

Ok. Lets try a different approach. 

 

I hate sports games. They re trash. FIFA, NHL, NBL, NFL, MBL, you name it. I despise them, only soccer game i ever played and moderately enjoyed was Super Soccer. 

 

If id rant about this "genre" on a regular basis, Id be the kind of person subject of the matter. Now even if somehow id make a valid point (last sports game  i rudementarily played was fifa98... i think), how could you see this hypothetical me as eligable to critizise thi s sports game?

 

No, buts. Those who actually play and enjoy this subgenre (and im not one of them) should be the one to sort out the pro and cons because they have an actual connection and know what they like/dislike in such games.



Hunting Season is done...