2013 WORST goty ?

Well no as I stated above I completely understand where I think she's coming from and don't intend to diminish anything. What is the issue exactly? I thought the issue was that she said those two games are the worst games to come out this entire generation - something that objectively, yes from a pure mechanics standpoint if you will, is not true. So what are we arguing? That subjectively the Last of Us can appear worse to someone than let's say Jumper: Griffin's Story? Yah ok, sure, to someone that might be true, but if we base every argument around fringe edge cases then there's no point discussing anything because just as Believer spoke up about objectivity, so can anyone just pull up the subjective game card and say NAH I DON'T THINK SO and the argument is over because who can argue against the almighty subjective opinion.

Even the mechanics can be subjective.

I don't think that objectivity really comes into this argument, it's all subjective. But the word "subjective" doesn't mean you can hide behind "it's just, like, my opinion, man". When a person comes up with an opinion, they need valid reasons to support that. "The shooting is bad, the story is terrible, and the game is ugly" are not really valid reasons as far as I'm concerned. That's where you start, that is not an end argument that you seriously present to somebody. So why's the shooting bad? What's wrong with the story? And what makes it ugly? It's an answer to that all-important but extremely difficult question "why?" that I was trying to get missacre to think about.

How have we established this, though? Have we carefully considered what these games are trying to accomplish with their mechanics, and then evaluating how well they achieve this goal? If we're looking at this in terms of fun, have we considered a definition of fun (something like this) that we can agree on and then argue from there? And if we're not looking at this in terms of fun, have we analyzed how the mechanics interact with the other aspects of the game, then considering how those different aspects might augment or diminish the overall product? Or are we merely looking for glitches?

Also, this just reeks of slippery slope.

This I can get behind.

Except this. Sort of. I was just noting confused language in game criticism (or whatever the hell we're doing here). Interpretations of mechanics can still be subjective. You might have simply been adding on to what I was saying instead of contradicting it, but it's a little difficult to tell.

At this point you're arguing for the sake of arguing. Have we established what an established establishment is really trying to establish? It's video games, it's not that serious, and it's not that difficult to say this extremely poor game is worse than this triple A title. If you want to levy the benefits of what Jumper was trying to accomplish then go right ahead and enlighten me with thought provoking arguments about the deeper meaning behind budget movie tie-ins.

I'm going to bow out of this one and leave you to go at it alone though. Good talk.

I'm purporting that on the principle that the games are not completely broken and technically impressive in a visual sense, neither of them could possibly qualify for the "worst games of the decade". Obviously there are more factors but when you start talking about gameplay mechanics, pacing and story, things become a lot more subjective and it becomes more about preference. I also think you'd need to have had an extremely limited viewing of stories in all mediums to call BioShock: Infinite's "complete horseshit", and I would put you in a mental asylum right now if you used those words to describe The Last of Us's.

And the accompanying music.

It also becomes a lot more meaningful than a simple QA test.

Or perhaps a broad one. (Oh, I know you guys are going to tear me apart on this one.)

Also, why are people complaining about BioShock Infinite/The Last of Us potentially being Worst GOTY 2013 (if it's the worst of the decade, then I have to imagine it's the worst of the year), but stuff like SimCity, Beyond, Battlefield, and COD all get a free pass? At least two of those games "function", according to the definition we've been going with in this thread. Where's the controversy there?

I think for expectations vs result, Colonial Marines is hard to top, dishonorable mention the Ride to Hell.

I don't like BioShock Infinite's story. I think the characters are bland, I think Elizabeth is a gross character, I think the focus of the plot is confused and I think it relies too much on obfuscating information to make it seem more interesting than it is.

But jesus christ, go to a book store and pick up something from the dollar bin of the Romance section. Watch The Room. When it comes to a story, there is usually at least a framework from which a coherent narrative is built. This would be a far more interesting discussion if it were on where BioShock: Infinite failed, but from the perspective of "This is complete and utter horseshit" it's the easiest thing in the world to argue out of. It's this hyperbolic "house of cards" style argument where a few things not done particularly well causes the whole thing to completely fall apart, and it just seems like a sketchy place to breed discussion.

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to the thread? I've read a ton of posts saying all of those games should not be on this poll. Rightfully.

And there we go. Tis the argument I desire. However, we could still have the "horseshit argument*" (or at least remnants of it) if we determined that these failings were grand enough and consequential enough to render Infinite's story reprehensible or ridiculous.

Yea, that's probably it.

*

I was trying to find a middle ground between you and humanity. This is in the realm of the subjective, yes, but no reasonable argument can be made that concludes that Bioshock Infinite is the worst, or even one of the worst, games of the generation.

I was just noting confused language in game criticism (or whatever the hell we're doing here).

At this point we're talking more about critical theory and applying that to video games than about criticizing a game. No real criticism of Bioshock Infinite or The Last of Us has shown up, we're just using those as examples. You could say that we should establish the merits of those games before delving into this argument but as long as we both agree that they're at the very least games of acceptable quality, then I'd say we can go on. Besides, we've both written on this site about those games so if someone needs to know what we think of them, they can go find out.

Except this. Sort of. I was just noting confused language in game criticism (or whatever the hell we're doing here). Interpretations of mechanics can still be subjective. You might have simply been adding on to what I was saying instead of contradicting it, but it's a little difficult to tell.

Mechanics are a funny beast. They are driven by cold-hard numbers and you could probably come up with an objective, factual statement about how well they're balanced. However, you can't objectively talk about the aesthetics of mechanics. One of the people on the podcast once asked the question "Well, does it play beautifully?" and I think that wonderfully encapsulates anything I have to say about how subjective mechanics are.

Finally, @humanity, c'mon duder. "They're just video games" is almost as dismissive as "it's just my opinion, man". People said "They're just novels" in the 18th century and "they're just movies" in the early part of the 20th century.

@believer258: No "dood", YOU c'mon. Take a look at this conversation. Someone made a ridiculous claim that anyone with any sense and knowledge of video games would dismiss without a second thought. Yet here is Video King trying to dissect the finer points of the English language and our understanding of the universe. From his lengthy blogs I know VGK loves to spill words quite earnestly but I'm not going to waste time discussing on what metaphysical level the Jumper game is worse than Last of Us and what subjectivity really means when you break the word down to a nigh molecular level. I wasn't even the biggest fan of that game but that's just ridiculous and a waste of everyone's time. Give me a break.

This is exactly why video games are in the state they are right now. People give them WAY too much thought, trying to force the medium to be some sort of dumbass art form. They're video games, not Casablanca. If you want art, go to a museum.

I don't think there's anything wrong with discussing whether or not subjectivity includes the idea that any piece of art could be considered the worst or best ever by two different people. If you don't believe that games are art... well, that's fine, but you don't need to get angry when a couple of people want to discuss games as an art form. Simply exclude yourself and the world is a happier place! Or, if you're already in the conversation, say "I enjoyed this discourse with you gents but I have no further comment." Or if you're a less refined person, just say "I'm done shootin' the shit with y'all, gonna go get some PBR and watch Roadhouse again!"

Also, I wasn't going to say anything else to you, missacre, but you quoted me. Why did you go seek this thread out again when you already knew that you were dissatisfied with the things being discussed in it? It had already disappeared from the Forums page as far as I know, so why? Do you just thrive on hostility and anger?

I was quoting humanity. I didn't think about you. If you want to place yourself in this conversation, go right ahead, but I didn't mention you at all. I directed no comment at you. I'm not exactly the one being hostile here. I didn't take up 1/4 of a thread talking about someone else with thinly veiled insults. I also didn't know I wasn't allowed back in this thread. Sorry for trespassing. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm done shootin' the shit with y'all, gonna go get some PBR and watch Roadhouse again!