@humanity said:
@bisonhero said:
@humanity: Yeah, Patrick is nearly incapable of appreciating a big budget game unless he perceives it as being some kind of risk for the publisher like Dishonored. Though granted, if that is the case and it's a so so game like Thief, Patrick still won't like it.
And I kinda think Jeff decides what new games he likes by throwing darts at a dartboard with various game titles pinned to it.
I honestly don't want to actually single anyone out but it's important to note that your appreciation of a game is a highly unique and individual matter. The key difference between what a fan of the site may think of a game and what a staff member might think of it is that one of these people get paid to share their opinion publicly. That is not to diminish what the guys do here to a mere matter of a paycheck, but I have very strong feelings about a variety of games that clash with that of Patricks or Jeffs - and at the end of the day no one is right.
Circling around back to the topic at hand: I didn't really mind much of the humor in Borderlands 2. I did really hate Tiny Tina though and I know that there is a large contingent of players that think she's the best part of the game.
I will say that there has been a strange bandwagon mentality within the game press as of late that I find perturbing - something that I thought would only be limited to horrible internet chatter. Quite possibly it's not even a conscious effort since game critics do tend to isolate themselves in that professional bubble. So more and more I've been seeing many different writers repeat almost the exact same thing concerning any one game. Most recently it's been Watch Dogs. I will admit to almost getting into knife fights over this title because I think it's gotten thrown under the bus for no real reason. And it's completely ok to think it's not the greatest game in the world, but I've heard even game journalists refer to it like it's completely worthless, and thats a shame.
Hey man, I was right in that same boat during the launch of the first Assassin's Creed. Remember how a lot of people in the games press thought it was shit because of no mini maps and repetitive mission design (which was actually one of the points of the whole thing), and then a lot of other people kept trying to stab those people repeatedly in the face and neck going uh uh uh uh uh because they were so blatantly wrong in their opinions?
Remember when Assassin's Creed sold 7 million units in its first month because it was such a fresh, invigorating, bold new game that the average gamer didn't give a piss what critics thought?
What I'm trying to say is that while a lot of people (well, a lot of game journalists) have been throwing Watch_Dogs under the bus, it's ultimately up to the game buying public - the same purchasing public the game journalists are not a part of - that decides what stays and what goes. In the end, word of mouth is far more important than glossy magazine editorials and what some reviews editor for website X says on Twitter. And word of mouth for Watch_Dogs has remained mostly positive. It may not be an Assassin's Creed seller, but I'm sure it's going to do enough good business to warrant a sequel that will, no doubt, iron out the kinks and provide an even richer, cyber-noir hacker experience for you to enjoy.
I have no idea where this came from except to say that all is not lost because game journalists don't like something. They are not the gate keepers of good taste, and they aren't even the gate keepers of taste making. Those would be you and I, and a lot of other people who check something out and deem it "pretty good."
Log in to comment