People need to deal with mediocrity better.

People know full well how to deal with good games and bad games, but no one seems knows how to deal with a game that is right in the middle. I've said it million times, but people that only play like the 5 star games don't know what a bad game is. I don't want this to to be a "Oh you play the popular games, so you suck" thing. I'm saying mediocre games are not amazing, but they are mostly just pleasant. Not every game you play has to be the most amazing thing ever. 
 
 I just beat Red Faction Armageddon, not the most amazing game I've ever played but it it was pleasant. There were no glitches, it never locked up on me, the controls were good, it entertained me for a week, it was just not the most novel game ever. I thought what more could I reasonably ask for from it. You could say "Well it could have been an open world game like the last one." What if there was an open world and it totally sucked? Jeff talked about when he gave Zelda: Ocarina of Time a 10 out of 10. The other editors said "Are you sure? what it if it was fully voiced?" to which Jeff said "What if it did have voice and it was terribly done? That would make it worst." This is not only true about Red Faction but great mediocre games like Alpha Protocol, wet, vanquish, dragon age 2, castlevania lords of shadow, the saboteur, mercs 2, two worlds 2, singularity. All those games are not amazing, but they are not bad either.

People know full well how to deal with good games and bad games, but no one seems knows how to deal with a game that is right in the middle. I've said it million times, but people that only play like the 5 star games don't know what a bad game is. I don't want this to to be a "Oh you play the popular games, so you suck" thing. I'm saying mediocre games are not amazing, but they are mostly just pleasant. Not every game you play has to be the most amazing thing ever. 
 
 I just beat Red Faction Armageddon, not the most amazing game I've ever played but it it was pleasant. There were no glitches, it never locked up on me, the controls were good, it entertained me for a week, it was just not the most novel game ever. I thought what more could I reasonably ask for from it. You could say "Well it could have been an open world game like the last one." What if there was an open world and it totally sucked? Jeff talked about when he gave Zelda: Ocarina of Time a 10 out of 10. The other editors said "Are you sure? what it if it was fully voiced?" to which Jeff said "What if it did have voice and it was terribly done? That would make it worst." This is not only true about Red Faction but great mediocre games like Alpha Protocol, wet, vanquish, dragon age 2, castlevania lords of shadow, the saboteur, mercs 2, two worlds 2, singularity. All those games are not amazing, but they are not bad either.

I'm just so pleased this wasn't yet another rant about people not appreciating DNF that I could kiss you.

I'm not quite sure I get your point. Is it the fact that we should except what's on our plate because even though it could've been better at least it's not worse? I can take that argument and say that it could've been better. If we accept mediocrity then the world would just do the bare minimum to satisfy us and the world would be a boring place to live.

I'd say "I'd say that I handle mediocrity rather well", but I play a good number of bad games, so I guess it's a moot point.

I'm just so pleased this wasn't yet another rant about people not appreciating DNF that I could kiss you.

I agree to a point, but it doesn't mean the players and press should have to lower their standards either. Mediocrity is nothing to celebrate, sometimes it's even worse than something bad.

I agree. It reminds me of the recent Splatterhouse remake. It received average reviews (not bad) but all the old school Splatterhouse fans (at least the admin of The West Mansion) began ranting how all game reviewers are incompetent and didn't 'get' the game. You know, that typical "you can't spell ignorant without IGN" rubbish. He even referred to Kotaku as one of the "major game reviewers" which made me laugh my head off.

I bring this up because the exact same thing seems to be happening with DNF, except on a far larger scale.
 
For the record, Splatterhouse 2010 was a average, yet enjoyable game. It was flawed, yet functional. Bland level design was made up for with the great personality of the Terror Mask, voiced by Jim Cummings. Its a niche game. Fans can be so fickle and need to realise that some games aren't for everyone. Reviews may influence, but if you enjoy a game then ranting about it like a lunatic isn't really a favourable presentation. I mean, it wasn't exactly God Hand by any strech of the imagination. 
 
I always think of average as 'an equal number of people will like and dislike this game'. Seems about right.

I'm not quite sure I get your point. Is it the fact that we should except what's on our plate because even though it could've been better at least it's not worse? I can take that argument and say that it could've been better. If we accept mediocrity then the world would just do the bare minimum to satisfy us and the world would be a boring place to live.

I agree to a point, but it doesn't mean the players and press should have to lower their standards either. Mediocrity is nothing to celebrate, sometimes it's even worse than something bad.

I was going to read you blog post, but I heard it's not very good.  I only read blog posts rated 9.0 or higher.

I'm just so pleased this wasn't yet another rant about people not appreciating DNF that I could kiss you.

There are a lot of games that I certainly wouldn't consider to be great, but that I absolutely love.  Some games have just the right combination of things that resonate with you, personally, so that you can overlook its flaws.  Anyone who only plays five star games is doing themselves a disservice.  They need to read the actual reviews and see if the game sounds like something that would work for them, they might be pleasantly surprised. 

I agree. It reminds me of the recent Splatterhouse remake. It received average reviews (not bad) but all the old school Splatterhouse fans (at least the admin of The West Mansion) began ranting how all game reviewers are incompetent and didn't 'get' the game. You know, that typical "you can't spell ignorant without IGN" rubbish. He even referred to Kotaku as one of the "major game reviewers" which made me laugh my head off.

I bring this up because the exact same thing seems to be happening with DNF, except on a far larger scale.
 
For the record, Splatterhouse 2010 was a average, yet enjoyable game. It was flawed, yet functional. Bland level design was made up for with the great personality of the Terror Mask, voiced by Jim Cummings. Its a niche game. Fans can be so fickle and need to realise that some games aren't for everyone. Reviews may influence, but if you enjoy a game then ranting about it like a lunatic isn't really a favourable presentation. I mean, it wasn't exactly God Hand by any strech of the imagination.  I always think of average as 'an equal number of people will like and dislike this game'. Seems about right.

So, what you're saying is that average games aren't bad, but that they also aren't great? 
In any case Dragon age 2 is a very good game, but a shitty Dragon Age game, and Alpha Protocol has bad shooting mechanics, everything else is pretty good. 
And i am looking the quicklook for DNF and the game doesn't look THAT bad.

I was going to read you blog post, but I heard it's not very good.  I only read blog posts rated 9.0 or higher.

So, what you're saying is that average games aren't bad, but that they also aren't great? 

If we accept mediocrity then the world would just do the bare minimum to satisfy us and the world would be a boring place to live.

I understand that 3-star games aren't bad, but if I have a limited amount of time to play games, I'm going to play 5 or 4 star type games. I don't want to spend 20 hours with a game just wasting time or seeking to content myself on some minimal level. If I'm going to put that much time into a game, I want to get a great experience out of it, or maybe even something I can take away from the game.

There are too many other things I can being doing with my time, rather than simply contenting myself with a mediocre time-waster.

I understand that 3-star games aren't bad, but if I have a limited amount of time to play games, I'm going to play 5 or 4 star type games. I don't want to spend 20 hours with a game just wasting time or seeking to content myself on some minimal level. If I'm going to put that much time into a game, I want to get a great experience out of it, or maybe even something I can take away from the game.

I know this is crazy but mediocrity is not worth $60.  That isn't to say a game is automatically unplayable pile of shit if it is mediocre.  As much as I liked less then stellar games like Hellboy: Science of Evil or Spider-Man: Web of Shadows I would of felt ripped off paying full retail price for these games. 

I know this is crazy but mediocrity is not worth $60.  That isn't to say a game is automatically unplayable pile of shit if it is mediocre.  As much as I liked less then stellar games like Hellboy: Science of Evil or Spider-Man: Web of Shadows I would of felt ripped off paying full retail price for these games. 

@kingzetta: Yes, you can get great experiences out of 3-star games, though I would say that is a fairly rare occurrence. I would say that Alpha Protocol, specifically, is an exceptional case because it actually tried to do something different, so while it failed, it sort of did so in a great and unique fashion. So many 3-star type games are simply Generic Fantasy RPG X and Modern Military Shooter 26, which I just don't foresee myself taking anything away from.

Also, when it costs $60 just to test the water, it sort prohibits experimentation and my willingness to take a chance on a game.

And that's where the way games are priced and our perception of cheaper games needs to change.

If I can have a great experience with a $40 game even though I may have to put up with some bugs or uninspired action scenes etc.. that seems like a pretty good deal.

@kingzetta: Yes, you can get great experiences out of 3-star games, though I would say that is a fairly rare occurrence. I would say that Alpha Protocol, specifically, is an exceptional case because it actually tried to do something different, so while it failed, it sort of did so in a great and unique fashion. So many 3-star type games are simply Generic Fantasy RPG X and Modern Military Shooter 26, which I just don't foresee myself taking anything away from.

Also, when it costs $60 just to test the water, it sort prohibits experimentation and my willingness to take a chance on a game.

I don't know man, the game may be considered mediocre overall. But usually that means it has multiple huge flaws nontheless.
 
And there are a ton of flaws that can ruin the entire experience for me. 
 
You named Dragon Age 2, look at the recycling of areas. That alone is one huge ass flaw that I couldn't tolerate.
 
Edit:
Oh and also, a lot games have great studios behind them or are a sequel to a fairly well received game. 
 
Of course it's disappointing to the fans if a title turns out to be only mediocre then. Also those titles often don't cost less than high quality games either...

I take offense to Vanquish being called mediocre. Sure, the game was short, but I thought it was pretty incredible. I would also say Lords of Shadow was better than mediocre too. 

The problem is this: all games cost $60. When people get a great game for that price, they are happy. When they get an ok game for that price, it makes them angry because the same $60 that bought them a very enjoyable game bought them an ok game. If you don't make a habit of paying full price for games that are considered mediocre, then you avoid this problem.

I don't know man, the game may be considered mediocre overall. But usually that means it has multiple huge flaws nontheless.  And there are a ton of flaws that can ruin the entire experience for me.   You named Dragon Age 2, look at the recycling of areas. That alone is one huge ass flaw that I couldn't tolerate.

Maybe it's just me, but you seem to be forgetting the place between mediocre and amazing, which is good. I wouldn't call Vanquish mediocre by any means, but I wouldn't call it amazing, I would call it good. I Haven't played alpha protocol, but from what I've heard the story telling is incredible but the gameplay is sub-par, that would land it in the good category for me.

I guess, I'd like to know what makes a game medicore, but still worth playing, as opposed to good? To me, a mediocre game is playable, but not worth playing. Everything it does feels bland and not fun. I see where you're coming from though.

I think people are harsh on mediocre games for the same reason administration was hard on me in middle and high school; something about not living up to potential angers people. The mediocre games people tend to get up in arms about are games with a reputation from developers that we've seen better material come out of before. On the other hand there are games that aren't great that people are pleasantly surprised by because it's unexpected.

I take offense to Vanquish being called mediocre. Sure, the game was short, but I thought it was pretty incredible. I would also say Lords of Shadow was better than mediocre too. 

I enjoy mediocre games. It helps remind you what good games feel like.

The problem is this: all games cost $60. When people get a great game for that price, they are happy. When they get an ok game for that price, it makes them angry because the same $60 that bought them a very enjoyable game bought them an ok game. If you don't make a habit of paying full price for games that are considered mediocre, then you avoid this problem.

Sorry but Mediocrity doesn't cut it. My time is worth more than that.

Maybe it's just me, but you seem to be forgetting the place between mediocre and amazing, which is good. I wouldn't call Vanquish mediocre by any means, but I wouldn't call it amazing, I would call it good. I Haven't played alpha protocol, but from what I've heard the story telling is incredible but the gameplay is sub-par, that would land it in the good category for me.

I guess, I'd like to know what makes a game medicore, but still worth playing, as opposed to good? To me, a mediocre game is playable, but not worth playing. Everything it does feels bland and not fun. I see where you're coming from though.

@kingzetta said:

I thought what more could I reasonably ask for from it. You could say "Well it could have been an open world game like the last one." What if there was an open world and it totally sucked?

That's an absurd argument. What if there was an open world and it was great? This opposite argument makes just as much sense, if not more considering that Guerilla was an open world game that was a large part of what made it great. The reason why this argument worked in 1998 for Ocarina is because most voice overs in 98 were awful. This is not the case with open worlds in 2011.

And a thing you're not considering about all this is the cost of games. Not only are they not cheap, they also all cost the same price. If two games are $60 and one is fantastic and the other is pretty okay, that's a big problem. You're getting less out of it for the same price. If a game isn't as good, it shouldn't cost as much. I brought Prototype last week, and that game is okay. But that's fine, because it cost me $20. If I had bought Prototype for $60 when it came out? I would be pissed, and rightfully so-- I had bought Infamous for the same price the week before and that game was great.

Apply this to any other type of product. For nothing else do you expect two similar products of different quality to be the same price. Why should games be any different?

@kingzetta: Mediocre by definition is neither good nor bad. I happen to think the distinction between a good game and a mediocre game is important because as I said, a mediocre game to me is not worth playing.

@MooseyMcMan said:

I take offense to Vanquish being called mediocre. Sure, the game was short, but I thought it was pretty incredible. I would also say Lords of Shadow was better than mediocre too. 

I thought those games were good too, but the world did not.

I think I can safely say I dealt with Alpha Protocol about as well as anybody could have.

@kingzetta said:

I thought what more could I reasonably ask for from it. You could say "Well it could have been an open world game like the last one." What if there was an open world and it totally sucked?

That's an absurd argument. What if there was an open world and it was great? This opposite argument makes just as much sense, if not more considering that Guerilla was an open world game that was a large part of what made it great. The reason why this argument worked in 1998 for Ocarina is because most voice overs in 98 were awful. This is not the case with open worlds in 2011.

And a thing you're not considering about all this is the cost of games. Not only are they not cheap, they also all cost the same price. If two games are $60 and one is fantastic and the other is pretty okay, that's a big problem. You're getting less out of it for the same price. If a game isn't as good, it shouldn't cost as much. I brought Prototype last week, and that game is okay. But that's fine, because it cost me $20. If I had bought Prototype for $60 when it came out? I would be pissed, and rightfully so-- I had bought Infamous for the same price the week before and that game was great.

Apply this to any other type of product. For nothing else do you expect two similar products of different quality to be the same price. Why should games be any different?

I agree. There is a lot of fun to be had with games that are not the best recieved by critics and players alike.

@SuperfluousMoniker said:

@kingzetta said:

@MooseyMcMan said:

I take offense to Vanquish being called mediocre. Sure, the game was short, but I thought it was pretty incredible. I would also say Lords of Shadow was better than mediocre too.

I thought those games were good too, but the world did not.

The world has bad taste.

Wait, since when did the world think those were bad games? Most reviewers gave them both pretty good scores.

@kingzetta said:

@MooseyMcMan said:

I take offense to Vanquish being called mediocre. Sure, the game was short, but I thought it was pretty incredible. I would also say Lords of Shadow was better than mediocre too. 

I thought those games were good too, but the world did not.

The world has bad taste.

@kingzetta said:

I thought what more could I reasonably ask for from it. You could say "Well it could have been an open world game like the last one." What if there was an open world and it totally sucked?

That's an absurd argument. What if there was an open world and it was great? This opposite argument makes just as much sense, if not more considering that Guerilla was an open world game that was a large part of what made it great. The reason why this argument worked in 1998 for Ocarina is because most voice overs in 98 were awful. This is not the case with open worlds in 2011.

And a thing you're not considering about all this is the cost of games. Not only are they not cheap, they also all cost the same price. If two games are $60 and one is fantastic and the other is pretty okay, that's a big problem. You're getting less out of it for the same price. If a game isn't as good, it shouldn't cost as much. I brought Prototype last week, and that game is okay. But that's fine, because it cost me $20. If I had bought Prototype for $60 when it came out? I would be pissed, and rightfully so-- I had bought Infamous for the same price the week before and that game was great.

Apply this to any other type of product. For nothing else do you expect two similar products of different quality to be the same price. Why should games be any different?

Why should I have to dael with it? Why should I waste my hard earned money on a game that does not live up to the hype/standerds? Duke Nukem forever. Rouge warrior. Shit like that should not be allowed. 

@SuperfluousMoniker said:

@kingzetta said:

@MooseyMcMan said:

I take offense to Vanquish being called mediocre. Sure, the game was short, but I thought it was pretty incredible. I would also say Lords of Shadow was better than mediocre too.

I thought those games were good too, but the world did not.

The world has bad taste.

Wait, since when did the world think those were bad games? Most reviewers gave them both pretty good scores.

Why should I have to dael with it? Why should I waste my hard earned money on a game that does not live up to the hype/standerds? Duke Nukem forever. Rouge warrior. Shit like that should not be allowed. 

Reviews and user feedback did not stop me buying Two Worlds, which for some reason i loved, even if it was a broken mess.

@The_Laughing_Man said:

Why should I have to dael with it? Why should I waste my hard earned money on a game that does not live up to the hype/standerds? Duke Nukem forever. Rouge warrior. Shit like that should not be allowed. 

I'm not telling you to. If you don't want them don't buy them. I didn't buy them, because I didn't want them. You should buy what you actually want, that should be common sense.