I like how we don't really state anything that could separate them from being a large-scale corporate endeavors lol like one has a large open world and the other has a good story? Again, this surface deep level analysis is precisely the reason why game critique is int he state that it is and why game awards are meaningless when compared to an award from any other industry
Try to follow the conversation before jumping in please. I'm stating that games criticism is in the state that it is because the same large scale corporate productions sweep the awards year after year. They're implying they deserve to sweep the awards, hence my response
I was given a reason for TLOU2 was that it has a great story and RDR2 has a detailed open world. I'm really not sure what I was supposed to do with those two observations but you clearly have lol
The reason people aren't following isn't because they're jumping in, it's because your argument is a lot dumber than you clearly think it is. I would also suggest from your patronising tone that the same is true of you.
I don't think anyone can doubt that the games are usually technically incredible. But opinions can definitely vary on the quality of the experience or certain mechanics. Just saying 'they're incredible or something' won't be the case for everyone and while the person you're talking to is a bit all over the place in their arguments (even if I agree with the jist of some of them), it isn't exactly the gotcha you might think it is.
That is fair but this topic has more to do with Sony's output than third parties, but your point is still valid for sure. And I obviously agree that not every title hits the mark.
Are you willing to reiterate as to which part of my argument you have an issue with or are you going to drive by personally attack me? No video game is worth that to be completely honest
You know what, you're right. Patronising people rubs me the wrong way but there was no reason for an attack.
It sure does get tiring repeating that they're still good games it's just a negative indicator that they're the only ones that sweep these games awards. AAA games are GOOD but they are NOT heads and shoulders so much better than literally everything else on the market every single god damn year that their continued yearly sweeping doesn't reflect negatively on the games industry as a whole. I'm not the only one saying things like this btw
Fair enough. I would like to see what you actually feel about my argument tho rather than what you think about me personally lol
Im not saying those games don't take risks or have unique qualities. They absolutely do. Death Stranding was tied with Fire Emblem for my 2019 GOTY and I wrote posts upon posts defending it's uniqueness and how it was a breath of fresh air for the industry, and kinda had critics not knowing what to do lol. So I agree with you in that way.
Well I think you're reducing the strength of these games to marketing terms like 'strong narrative' or 'open world' and judging them based on that alone. What makes RDR2 so good isn't that it's got a strong narrative or that it's got a believable open world. It's a 50+ hour game. There's a hundred strengths these games have that work together, and it's the end result that is so amazing. It's why games reviewing is so hard, you're trying to put into 500 words something that could really take thousands.
Isn't Uncharted 4 a sad older brother game?
I mean you can read my numerous posts (might be one on this page) where I say that although these games are good, they are rarely heads and shoulders better than everything else on the market to the point where the same games by the same people continue to sweep game awards and critics choices every single year. If it isn't indicative of the maturity of the games industry when compared to others then I don't really know what it is but I genuinely think it's a mold we should strive to break
Well...I mean they're not head and shoulders better than others...in your opinion? Your opinions is certainly not the objective benchmark of fact. I personally cannot think of any games that stand toe to toe with the likes of GTAV and RDR2
The audience issue exists for other mediums as well. There's always going to be readers who will only want to look at the most popular/biggest thing. I would argue that games critics should be paid more but obviously we agree on that so I'll I'm gonna say is that your post seems like a one big roundabout way to say that corporations decide GOTY lol
Right, it absolutely is, I'm just saying this is what I'd venture most people actually mean when they say "sad dad game"; that is, not a game literally about a depressed father, but one that (tends to) revolve around older male characters, and take place in the framework of a (usually) open-world third-person action adventure game with a realistic art style.
I';m glad you feel that way. And there's nothing wrong with liking big budget movies either. But they're not the only ones that win awards
Right but there you go again trying to undermine others' opinion, as just liking the equivalent of movies. I'm not a movie guy, I think Marvel is stupid as hell. RDR2 is amongst the best gaming has to offer. In all honesty, RDR2 is probably a better crafted piece of media than your favourite game. It's not just stupid Hollywood shit.
Mums are tough. Mum is the word. I would like a Pun Mum game to tell the story of conciliating being a mum and a comedian.
Well no, again the salient point is not just that they're third-person, it's a third-person action-adventure game in a realistic art style that appears to have a heavy emphasis on cinematic story-telling (whatever you might take that to mean). I am not saying that the gameplay is the exact same, as it is not; in Tsushima you slash enemies with a sword, in Returnal you shoot them with a gun, but fundamentally I am interacting with the character and engaging in actions in a similar way (going by the trailers, at least).
If you let fans pick the Oscars then big budget movies would sweep too. And yeah I'm sure there are a lot of reasons why game critiques and awards are the way they are now but again I have to reiterate it's precisely the reason why games are seen closer to toys than to art by the average person
I think they do literally mean you have a kid follow the character about, or the main character's young daughter is the deuteragonist like Witcher 3 or Bioshock Infinite. The cynical idea that they'll give a game an award, because that character is cute, and "They must be protected" even if the developers say "as you can see, this character can defend themself"
If you want to only play AAA games I'm not going to stop you. I really don't understand how it's different than just stupid Hollywood shit when a lot of stupid Hollywood shit like Marvel is actually good. They're finely crafted movies with great effects, large scale action that can't be done with a lesser budget, and great writing. But if they were representative of the best and most thought provoking the medium had to offer well... movies would be viewed more like games overall haha
