Why do so many people on /v/ think they know what makes a game good? Why is the hubris on here so unreal?
Would you honestly sit in a room together with someone like Miyamoto or Sakurai to debate the nature of game development, and expect to win?
>Miyamoto
Maybe.
>Sakurai
Yeah.
>>320963890
>Why do so many people on /v/ think they know what makes a game good? Why is the hubris on here so unreal?
Why do you act like it's ridiculous to know what a good game is? I think it's more ridiculous that people play the subjectivity card so much. I mean, you could sit there and say Mario 3 isn't better than Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde because it's "subjective", but you're just being a contrarian and you don't really have any kind of good point. People act like because there isn't a machine that measures it, and because one reviewer might fight a game to be an 8/10 while another might find the same game to be a 9/10, that must mean there are no common themes behind which games people tend to enjoy and which games people do not enjoy. People deny common sense and overlook the simple truth, in a vain attempt to appear really wise and live in their subjective fantasy land. I'm content to just admit that Mario 3 is a better game than Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, or that Super Mario 64 is better than Super Man 64. You guys don't look wise when you assert the opposite or say it's subjective, you just look like idiots who are trying to appear extremely intelligent.
>Would you honestly sit in a room together with someone like Miyamoto or Sakurai to debate the nature of game development, and expect to win?
I don't think anyone who be on the opposite side of a debate with either of them, rather they may only agree with 70-90% of their game design choices. And that is a good thing. It would be stupid if every dev and every player thought exactly like them.
Also, this is an appeal to authority fallacy. Both of them have made some bad choices before. Miyamoto thinks Super Mario World is better than 3, which while you may agree with him, is still debatable. Miyamoto also wanted to give Link a fully automatic weapon around the TP era.
>>320963890
i don't have to be miyamoto or sakurai to know when a game is shit
just like i don't have to be a chef to know when my food's been burned
>>320964736
Bad Mario Maker level design
>forces you to choose between several doors / pipes, all but one kill you
>invisible block causes you to fall to your death
>instantly kills you by knocking you off with a spring or instant thwomp right at the beginning (or any other method of instantly killing the player)
>obnoxious overuse of sound effects
>boxes you in with invisible blocks, forcing you to wait for the timer to run out / start over, or more likely, just skip the level
>requires you to do a leap of faith / blind jump
>hoard of enemies taking up the whole screen
>things that make the player wait too long, such as too many boo rings, long lines of flamethrowers, waiting for a shell to destroy a ton of blocks, etc.
>auto sections where you don't actually do anything
Good level design
>Try to use a good variety of enemies and obstacles. Nobody likes levels that are just full of munchers and shit like that.
>Don't necessarily try to make something innovative / gimmicky. Ideas like that should just come to you, don't force them. Just try making some standard stages like what you'd see in a typical Mario game.
>Look at the book that came with the game. It is actually a good source of inspiration for level design ideas.
>Levels should generally be medium to hard difficulty.
>It's good to give a power-up near the beginning of a level. People don't want to have to start the whole level over just for making one tiny mistake. Allow a small margin of error and at least give them a mushroom somewhere near the beginning.
>For inspiration, try creating an obstacle that Mario would not normally be able to overcome, then consider all of the ways you could add something to help him get past it. For instance, imagine a jump that is too high for Mario to make. You could use a trampoline, a vine, a flying enemy for Mario to jump off of, an invisible block to find while Mario is pressured by enemies, he could jump off of Yoshi / jump out of a boot, etc.
>>320964973
I posted this because it shows that there is a good way and a bad way to design a level. It's not hard to pick up on these patterns or to analyze these game design concepts.
Now, someone might say "b-but it's subjective! I like all the things in the bad design section, but I don't like the things listed under good design!" Well, you're not smart. You're stupid. You're just saying the opposite of the simple truth and there is no value in it whatsoever. Stop denying the simple truth to try to appear smart.
>>320965217
>everyone who disagrees with me is just being contrarian
You're an idiot, doesn't take a Real gamer to spot that.
>>320965329
>everyone who denies the simple truth to try to look smart is an idiot
FTFY
>>320963890
I'd win. I'd remind them of their roots and their old, better, design philosophy.
>>320965409
The fact that you believe there to be a simple truth rather undermines your entire argument.
Just because the object of discussion can't be objectively evaluated doesn't mean you can substitute your own subjective opinion as an objective measure and tell everyone else they're wrong when they disagree with your objectively correct reasoning.
>>320965680
>The fact that you believe there to be a simple truth rather undermines your entire argument.
Random assertion with nothing to really back it up.
>Just because the object of discussion can't be objectively evaluated doesn't mean you can substitute your own subjective opinion as an objective measure and tell everyone else they're wrong when they disagree with your objectively correct reasoning.
Which is something nobody did. Now you're just feeling sorry for yourself and you're pulling the "you're trying to force your opinion on me!" card.
>>320965998
>Random assertion with nothing to really back it up.
It was, that's how I dismantled it so easily.
>Which is something nobody did.
>>320965217
>Well, you're not smart. You're stupid. You're just saying the opposite of the simple truth and there is no value in it whatsoever.
Your words are so generically tuned to arguing on /v/ that I can just throw them back at you and there's nothing amiss, you're barely even able to make a coherent argument, let alone press a point after you've made it.
>>320966491
>It was, that's how I dismantled it so easily.
"I'm rubber and you're glue XD" and now you won't answer for the fact that I was talking about your argument, not my own. You won't answer for your own stupid assertion with nothing to back it up; you're just ignoring it and trying to move on from it.
>Your words are so generically tuned to arguing on /v/ that I can just throw them back at you and there's nothing amiss, you're barely even able to make a coherent argument, let alone press a point after you've made it.
Everything I said was coherent and logical, and the fundamental pillar of your argument is rooted in denying the simple truth in favor of "lalala, everything is subjective!"
>>320963890
I might not be a professional game developer but I'm a professional customer.
>>320966702
>You won't answer for your own stupid assertion
I've not actually made one, as you'd notice if you were bothering to read my posts rather than scan them for mistakes to call me out on.
You don't understand the difference between subjective and objective yet, you think subjective is just an excuse people use to defend opinions they hold but know to be incorrect, while making the same stupid mistake yourself when you think your opinion on what makes a game good is any more useful than everyone else's.
>>320967117
>I've not actually made one, as you'd notice if you were bothering to read my posts rather than scan them for mistakes to call me out on.
You actually did make one. And now you look like a huge asshole who's ideas aren't worth entertaining for denying it and deflecting to me. Oh - And anyone can fucking scroll up and see that's what you did. Did you think I would just let it slide and wouldn't quote it again after you denied it?
>>320965998
>>The fact that you believe there to be a simple truth rather undermines your entire argument.
>Random assertion with nothing to really back it up.
Deny it again. It won't take away the fact that this is a baseless assertion, and it actually undermines your own argument.
>You don't understand the difference between subjective and objective yet, you think subjective is just an excuse people use to defend opinions they hold but know to be incorrect, while making the same stupid mistake yourself when you think your opinion on what makes a game good is any more useful than everyone else's.
Don't ask a question if you don't want an answer in the future. You asked why people think they know what a good game is. The answer is that it's not vain or ridiculous to claim that you know what a good game is, because it's based on pretty simple concepts and common themes such as >>320964973 (these would be good / bad 2D platformer design concepts), it's stupid to deny that you know what makes a good game and what does not, and just because it's somewhat subjective and there isn't some sort of a machine that measures good game design does not mean there is no common themes behind what sort of games people tend to enjoy and which ones they do not.
It would be ridiculous if all the devs just agreed to forget everything they think they know about game design, under this idea that everything is subjective anyway and review scores are just completely random and arbitrary. This seems to be what people like you want.
You don't have to be a chef to know whether something tastes good or not.
You don't have to be a director to know if a movie is good or not.
I hate this fallacy, "hurr if you're so smart why don't you do your own X?"
>>320967765
You list a bunch of gameplay themes and divide them into good and bad, as though you can isolate and distill the mechanics from the context and still make useful sense of them.
All you're doing is making a checklist of things you do and don't like in videogames, if game does thing you like, it is good game, get many check! The fact that you label your list of preferences as 'common sense' only underlines how hilariously myopic your perspective on this issue is.
Idiots like you is why we've got numeric scores in the first place, you think that your opinions are objective because you've never experienced any others.
>>320968198
>I hate this fallacy, "hurr if you're so smart why don't you do your own X?"
I hope that eventually, this will be widely recognized as a fallacy and an overall stupid retort. Also, context is important here. Think about WHY someone would use this statement.
>I don't like game
>Why don't you like game? You're just being a hipster and you just hate it because it's popular!
>I didn't like game because [gives analysis of the game mechanics and why he feels they did not work well or make for a fun game]
>Oh yeah? Well why don't you just make your own game if you're so smart! Checkmate!
The reason people say it is because they can't fucking stand someone not liking what they like. That's what it all goes back to.
I know what makes a good game because I only play good games. There were a lot of good final fantasy and mario games but you cant really sit here and lie saying they were all great.
As would be "consumers" we should dictate our own taste but surprise individual preference doesn't matter compared to mass appeal. Same reason we'll no longer see games like Fallout 1, or Waxworks or [ ]
>do movie critics not know at all when a movie is good or not
>do the thousands of user/customer review sites have literally no merit
>does OP suck cock
the answer to all three is yes
>>320963890
I couldn't
I can't speak japanese ;_;
>>320963890
Yes, to both of those people.
>>320968610
>I know what makes a good game because I only play good games.
You should probably have something to compare it to, even if it simply means being aware of bad game design concepts or being able to imagine how something could be made worse, without having actually experienced it necessarily.
>There were a lot of good final fantasy and mario games but you cant really sit here and lie saying they were all great.
Completely agree with this. I can't stand when people say things like "All Zelda games are good", or all games within any given series are good.
>>320968664
>>do movie critics not know at all when a movie is good or not
I think movie critics are lightyears ahead of game critics. That's why you see scores like 5/10 handed out frequently and they don't just hand out 10/10s like they're nothing.
>>do the thousands of user/customer review sites have literally no merit
I disagree, "professional" game journalist reviews mean nothing, but user reviews come from an unbiased person who isn't being paid, and is just a person like you who played the game and has an opinion on it.
>>320969273
I hate how every game gets an 8+ unless it has serious flaws. It has to be technologically broken to get less than a 5. Vidya criticism is so far behind film and even music. Not everything is good, a lot of things are mediocre.
>>320965586
B-b-but their decayed reflexes and delusions of reaching new audiences.
>>320969273
I agree tht professional gaming reviews are garbage, but user review usually are as well unless you read a particularly in depth or thoughtful one. So many people use Metacritic or Steam to upvote or downvote the game based on their opinion, or even more annoying to protest or shill the game. Basically the people who spam 0/10 or Dislike for one reason.
>>320963890
I would win a debate about that.
I would lose a debate about HOW to develop a game or
I would lose a debate about the costs of developing a game
I would lose a debate about the resources needed to develop a game
But I would wipe the floor with both of them on the same chair about what makes a game good or enjoyable.
>>320970006
I know this has already been said 1,000,000 times so I'm beating a dead horse but they have to give high scores, otherwise devs won't give them anything to report on in the future. If they were honest and handed out more low scores the devs of those games wouldn't want them reviewing their games anymore. That is why gaming journalism is such a huge fucking joke; nothing they say can be trusted. Even if we disregard their untrustworthy paid reviews, they aren't even a good or necessary news source.
>>320963890
Yeah, even with no experience I'd surpass those hacks in a matter of hours. They're old as shit and don't know how games work anymore.
>you need to be able to make a car to know a car with 3 wheels is fucking retarded
>>320970281
Well of course. You have to filter through all the 14 year old trolls and find someone who clearly knows what they're talking about and is giving a detailed explanation of the game and its mechanics.
>>320970296
>But I would wipe the floor with both of them on the same chair about what makes a game good or enjoyable.
What would you say this is? I have my own answer obviously but I am curious what you think makes a game good or enjoyable.
>>320970776
If he likes it, it's an objectively good and enjoyable game and you are wrong if you disagree.
>>320970871
Literally nobody believes this though. It's just a boogeyman, coming from the "everything is subjective" crowd.
>>320971232
Which is really super for the "My opinion just happens to be objectively correct" crowd.
>>320971529
>Which is really super for the "My opinion just happens to be objectively correct" crowd.
Again, something nobody believes. It's just that someone beats you in a debate so you feel sorry for yourself and start acting like they were somehow forcing their opinions on you.
>>320972294
>Again, something nobody believes.
There's plenty of people ITT who are claiming they can tell everyone what makes a good game.
hackurai is literally a manchild who resorts to strawman arguments that have already been debunked by your image
chances are he couldn't explain a single thing he does without his subordinates helping him to prepare for an interview months in advance, during which he'll say something retarded and contradictory anyway like he historically has done
