Tevor_the_Third

@corpsemachine: So what I don't get is why would using the third person camera to look around and scout be considered unfair or cheating and not just as part of the meta.

It's been there since the servers went live, a fundamental component of the game being third person.

Reading through the above replies my only real takeaway was that certain people just, on a fundamental level, will just always consider FPS style games to be superior. It doesn't matter the specifics, if you are shooting a gun it's FPS or bad.

For example there's really no reason why tactically using the camera to view the environment from behind cover in a videogame would be a bad thing. You're using the tools available to you to succeed. Unless of course you're talking about a competitive FPS. It'd break Counterstrike for instance. Thing is, Battlegrounds was never that game. The very fact that it is third person is evidence enough that it's not a competitive FPS. The same way that being a dog is proof enough your not a cat. But because it can be played as a FPS a certain subset will always hold it to a different set of standards then most people.

Which is fine. That's why they made FPS only servers.

So I would say the answer to your question in simply that. It's not more "hardcore". It's not objectively better. It's just different. And there's an audience for whom that specific difference makes a huge difference. They only want their shooters to be one specific way and anything outside that isn't "different" it's "worse". Human nature rearing it's ugly head yet again.

Another way to look at it is to think of Smash Brothers tournaments! :P

Those people straight up ban 90% of the games designed content then afix their own house rules as to how it's played. This has become the standard and is also looked upon as the "real" and "hardcore" way of playing these games. Instead of adapting to the games meta they believe their way is better and enforced their own fan-built meta. Instead of learning to utilize the third person camera as a powerful tool they just call it out as bad.

Player Unknowns Battle Grounds: No Items, FPS only, Final Destination. Ban Diddy Kong.

People need to stop insisting on having absolutes in life. Or especially on the internet :p

This is not a Yes or No question. Like most things in life the answer is; it depends on situation, context and other aspects of the matter at hand.

Do you need to beat a game to review it? Depends on the game.

Certainly there are games you should probably beat first, we've all read those reviews where they clearly stopped playing two hours in as shown by the fact all their complaints are addressed and solved in the game itself.

But it's also easy to cherry pick instances where it doesn't matter. Look at the original Super Mario Bros. If someone reviewing that game only plays six stages... Who cares?

They've a full grasp of the look, the feel, the mechanics, all the power ups, how secrets work, the different stage and enemy types, everything they need to fairly and effectively critique that game. There's nothing in 7-2, for example, that would have any effect on a review.

But old games don't count you say? Ok. Look at the Binding of Isaac. You don't need to get to the chest or Platinum God that game to fully know exactly what it is. It'd take a lot more playing and research then Mario of course, but you could fairly stop way before "the end" and give a fair review.

You just need all the relevant information and experience to accurately say what a game is.

The tricky part is knowing when it's ok to stop.

Play 40 hours of Final Fantasy 12 and not knowing how the story ends isn't going to change that review. I don't think you really miss anything else, just more of what you've already seen and done and you already know how you feel about that. Play 40 hours of Neverwinter Nights 2 however and you'll miss the whole Stronghold building part of the game. That reviewer should have played more.

The fear here is that they're offering some sort of authorative, if still subjective, oppinion without seeing the whole picture. I agree that sort of problem can indeed invalidate an oppinion. If you don't know about the subject you're speaking on then who cares what your saying?

But not all games are holding out with that sort of hidden depth. Plenty of games are pretty upfront with what they have to offer. Also it's 2017. If someone reviewing Nier wants to know if "they need to keep playing" before they write the review it's pretty easy to find out that they do.

Legacy of Kain.

It's dead. I accept it's dead and don't want a new one. It's been too long for a direct sequel to make sense and a reboot... Well what do you reboot? The franchise was those specific chararacters, plots and settings. Rebooting leaves what? Vampires and inconsistent mechanics?

Naw. Kain and the Soul Reaver are gone.

But I'd like to live in the world where that story kept going.

I would define "Gamer" as a nonsense word. Often used as a way to over compensate for a sense of identity. More often it' s just a label people have heard others use and so adopt themselves. Because Zeitgeist and because humans love labeling things.

"I heard those other people call themselves Gamers. I like games too! I must also be a Gamer! ... Please include me in your tribe."

I am not a Gamer. I am not any "Thing" you can fit in a neat little box with a label. I am a person and so are all are you. Don't opt in to reductive classism and tribalism for literally no reason.

As far as games go; I am a person who fully, openly and unashamedly loves Videogames as my main hobby and interest. But a "Gamer" I m not.