Games You SHOULDN'T Buy #3 - Pokémon X and Y

[Ryukouki]

Ryukouki: That's good. I'd be fine with an opinionated article column instead of a hard facts spread. In fact, I prefer it to this. It makes discourse easier without having to argue the semantics with people. *Looks at Gahars*

God damn it, now I have to try and redesign a new logo. I HOPE YOU'RE HAPPY!

 

[Sterling]

God damn it, now I have to try and redesign a new logo. I HOPE YOU'RE HAPPY!

NOOO, I liked the logo too. :<

 

[Ryukouki]

NOOO, I liked the logo too. :<

Actually, I dunno. Maybe it's possible to salvage this. Must think about this. Problem is right now everyone has some bloated expectation on what they want to see, and its beginning to drive me a bit mad. This is but a hobby for me to do, so remember that.

 

[The Real Jdbye]

Ryukouki, you're crazy.

 

[Ryukouki]

Ryukouki, you're crazy.

Must be doing my job right then.

 

[Seph54]

When the game switched gens the first time, all of G/S/C content was shoved out of the way. R/S/E had arguably about the same amount of endgame content as X and Y did, and Platinum was the one with the MOST content because of how much better they were able to use their resources. I'm not arguing it wasn't rush, but what's there is polished like a bronzong mirror. Simplifying it to Mewtwo is over simplifying it, I merely mentioned him because it was a nod to older players. Plus, keep in mind that the games are getting huge. They're still trying to get the hang of the hardware.

Emerald had more post game content than X and Y lol. Not only could you go and capture the remaining Gen 3 Legendary pokemon including Groudon and Kyorge in one game cart(this wasn't seen again until Platinum, where you could get Palkia and Dialga, and hasn't been seen since). The battle frontier was a whole new beast, which was extremely difficult, and took strategy to conquer(with it getting more difficult after getting a silver pendent from that respective facility). R/S had a similar post game situation as X and Y, but even then you still had more places to explore more, more legends to capture post game, and better replay value than X and Y(imo). X and Y was just plan bad when it came to post game content.

I know we can all agree that the 3rd game or pair of games(whichever Game Freak decides) will improve on X and Y and change things similar to how it always been with the re-vist to the region.

 

[Gahars]

*Shrug* If there was no standard than this couldn't be a possibility. Look at any game objectively and you can find flaws. The key is "does the bad outweigh the good?" That's your standard, and I think we can all agree that X and Y doesn't belong here for that very reason.

Again, again, what objective standard? One man's bug is another's feature. Sure, maybe whether or not a game turns on can be measured objectively, but after that point, you run right into the brick wall of subjectivity and personal opinion. There's no universal standard or checklist you can apply to games that determine whether or not video games are good or fun.

Video games are not cars, where you can just run the engine or crash it into a wall to determine its quality (and even there, there's still a lot of room for personal opinion and taste).

See, you hate the people who like pokemon more than you hate the game.

Where the hell did you get that?

I don't care for Pokemon, but I don't care that people care for Pokemon. The problem comes when people take their love for Pokemon to such an extent that they take any criticism of the franchise as a personal slight, something we see here time and time again.

It's an issue of fanaticism, not difference of opinion. Really, you could replace "Pokemon" in there with anything and the point is just the same - when you hold something as above criticism, that's a problem.

ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv
adjective

1. 1.
   (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
   "historians try to be objective and impartial"

You assume I am incapable of being objectively critical in my analysis of games I like. That's why you're wrong here. And yes, games can be objectively good. Just like movies, music, and books can be objectively good and execute their intents well. And again, there's three categories of games: good, bad but redeemable, and ugly. The bottom line is that you're putting the value of zero to a game that objectively has more value. You can have an opinion, but when it moves from opinion to a factual statement like the thread title I get salty.

Pfft, what?

No, you can't. Feelings on art (like video games, movies, music, paintings, dance, performance, etc.) are inherently influenced by feelings or opinions, along with a multitude of other factors, because art is based entirely around feelings, opinions, emotions, and all that other gooey, subjective stuff. It's simply asinine to assert otherwise.

Furthermore, it's silly to put quality into such rigid categories. Quality is a spectrum with huge ranges, and it's limiting to say video games or anything else can only fit into three predetermined categories. What about games that are just mediocre? Not quite good but certainly not bad? What if a game is just bad, but not enough to be ugly? What if it's just there?

That's not to say that you can't examine things critically and try (keyword) to be objective in your analysis, but any critic worth his salt will tell you that your own perception will color your work. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, either. Just, you know, keep that in the back of your mind when reading and you'll be all hunky dory.

Nice try Gahars, but I can see right through your facade and see your true form.

This isn't the place for your high school poetry, Sterling.

What is my true form, though? Do I have wings? Am I all sick and gnarly, like some sort of dragon? Or maybe a wyvern, the hipsters of the dragon kingdom? How swole am I? DYEL-level or too swole to control? Please respond.

That's good. I'd be fine with an opinionated article column instead of a hard facts spread.

Good thing you already got that in post #1 on page #1, then.

 

[jagerstaffel]

I like Pokemon X/Y. I think folks were spoiled by all the years of Action replay for the previous games, or maybe I'm speaking for myself

I'm starting to treat these threads more like "Games you shouldn't buy at full price" (because I got this game brand new for cheap )

 

[Black-Ice]

I actually had Metroid Other M and Final Fantasy XIII and sequels down the pipeline somewhere else.

Welp you've lost me as a reader.

 

[FAST6191]

ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv
adjective

1. 1.
   (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
   "historians try to be objective and impartial"

You assume I am incapable of being objectively critical in my analysis of games I like. That's why you're wrong here. And yes, games can be objectively good. Just like movies, music, and books can be objectively good and execute their intents well. And again, there's three categories of games: good, bad but redeemable, and ugly. The bottom line is that you're putting the value of zero to a game that objectively has more value. You can have an opinion, but when it moves from opinion to a factual statement like the thread title I get salty.


Length of time means nothing in the timeless format of games.

You manage to quote the dictionary and still miss the point... that is impressive.

How can you possibly have a good review where opinions do not come into it? Hell half the point of finding a good review is to find a reviewer that has tastes align somewhat with your own, even within a concept -- I really like computerised card games but I am not the best at many so can not give a truly good account of the AI and all statistics for win/loss and beyond are for me is something I have to skip past on the menu. Indeed people have often come the other way and railed against the sound, graphics, gameplay and donkey type reviews.

On the accomplishing what it aims to do thing. That could be a baseline but on the flipside I have watched many a horror film because I found it hilarious, sat through many a boring game because I liked the engine (pokemon fails in this for me) and otherwise twisted things towards my own needs (even going so far as to actively do it by taking up ROM hacking and video editing). Going into the absurd territory I am probably duty bound to make an example like I could write some incredibly racist screed and have objectively do what it sets out to do, does not make it good though. One might even argue intent is almost irrelevant in a lot of cases.
Also what is objective good? In music discord was not considered good, breaking from that gave us heavy metal (see tritone). Coming the other way in a post battlefield earth world most cinematographers are rather more conservative with their use of Dutch angles (off 90 degrees camera), tropes may be considered bad now but originally they might have been considered a new and interesting form.
Do the good guys win... what is good, also "bad" people win all the time and such things make for great stories.
Going for facts on pokemon
The game system boils down to an objectively worse test of combinations and methods compared to a lot of already established games and mathematical possibilities.
The above is true for competitive between players at the extremes. Ryukouki had a thread on the matter even.
The above is true for the games themselves (see the comments along the lines of soloing with the starter)
The game is not great as a test of any great skill. We had this discussion for legal mon generation. It turns out the system is so much luck (though not a truly crazy amount) and press a, and it also does not boil down a long timeframe to do it (if you can legitimately make a competition worthy set within a week, or possibly a long weekend it does not count so much).
To put it in the parlance of some game types the PVE is bad and the PVP is bad if you want a challenge.

However if we come at it from a rpg lite angle then yeah it will teach you basic move management, party management, the concept of weaknesses, movement/action/item puzzles, reading for directions, resource management... basically all the stuff you need when the game has that but is not so forgiving. I know all though and, unlike a lot of books on various concepts, I am seldom in the market for a basic game to retread that (not to mention the concept of genres is collapsing and we are getting nice mixes, I can even have a lot of that in a fighting game now if I did decide a refresher was in order).

You seem to be somewhat hung up on the feature name, can you not instead read it as hyperbole? Attention grabbing names/headlines are a common concept after all.

Books, film, paintings.... realistically not a lot has happened in them that could not have been done before (albeit with a lot more effort/money in the case of film). Or if you prefer I can get much the same thing from a 30/40 year old book, film and painting as I can from a modern one, barring something to lose myself (useful but hardly a thing to hitch your wagon to) and throwbacks there is no way I can get my C64 to do something like Mass Effect. Beyond that people are still figuring out game design -- ask most game designers to cover game theory and you will get a blank look, ask people tangentially involved with films about the basics of cinematography and you will probably be able to have a nice lecture/discussion.

It seems we have dived headlong almost into antilogic territory so I will cut this post off here.

 

[Sterling]

FAST, you simply can't have a good review without an opinion. You can however be objectively critical despite your enjoyment of the media (it's why I factor in my enjoyment into a score). That was not my point. Can you say that something doesn't do something good because you didn't enjoy it? Either it's legitimately doing something wrong, or you're not being objective and giving credit where credit is due (which you do even with games you don't like all that much). And that last part is the hardest thing to do.

This was entirely an argument of semantics and expectations. I knew of course that these would require a certain amount of opinions, but I expected a high amount of objectivity, not the opposite. If you're going to bring in things like music and other very personal tastes, the headlines need to change to reflect it. I hate click bait and misleading titles.

The Crysis article was a good example of personal experience and objectivity. It was subjective and extremely passionate in that the user had a terrible experience with it and kinda jaded him. The first article was also very objective and tight which had very real criticisms. My expectations with the title (and others) led me to call out this particular article for its subjectivity. Objectively it does very little to convince me that X and Y was a good choice for the block anyway. It was a very weak article on all levels, and I needed to voice my displeasure.

Edit: And to be fair, there's more objectivity then subjectivity in there. Ryu really tried to justify the space, but unfortunately the article ended up being extremely nitpicky because of it. It felt like he was drawing at straws.

EDIT 2, Gahars: In case you didn't get the Fallout reference, I was joking on the true form thing. It was also a pass at the conversation. No Bark Noonan liked to rant along about crazy shit, which that particular convo was getting way off topic.

 

[emigre]

Wow, I guess Pokemons is serious busines.

I thought X and Y were alright and enjoyed the gaems.

 

[medoli900]

The elite 4 was easy? Why it is the first one that i actually found difficult. In other gen, my team was never wiped out. In X/Y, my team was wiped out 4 time before i could win against Drasna.

 

[FAST6191]

Can you say that something doesn't do something good because you didn't enjoy it? Either it's legitimately doing something wrong, or you're not being objective and giving credit where credit is due (which you do even with games you don't like all that much). And that last part is the hardest thing to do.

You can indeed, there is a concept otherwise known as greater or lesser than the sum of its parts. It is quite possible for the rest of something to drag the good stuff down. I may try to work around it in various ways but the fact remains it is possible. Likewise there is also the "great system, pity it is pointless in the grand scheme of things" problem.

 

[Sterling]

You can indeed, there is a concept otherwise known as greater or lesser than the sum of its parts. It is quite possible for the rest of something to drag the good stuff down. I may try to work around it in various ways but the fact remains it is possible. Likewise there is also the "great system, pity it is pointless in the grand scheme of things" problem.

Definitely. You're doing great on your reviews, but you do get a bit wordy lol. Posting habits.

 

[chavosaur]

Well, based on this, I think I unfortunately will lose you as a reader, as I actually had Metroid Other M and Final Fantasy XIII

You ought to put the entirety of Final fantasy as a column, as no one should spend their money's on such bad gaems ;O;

 

[Ryukouki]

I have decided to put this column on an indefinite hiatus. You are welcome to voice your thoughts but further posting for this series is done for the time being.

 

[Sterling]

I have decided to put this column on an indefinite hiatus. You are welcome to voice your thoughts but further posting for this series is done for the time being.

I see. I'm sure you have your reasons and it's not due to previous criticisms. I hope to see your other ideas soon, you're one of the better Mag Staff we've had in recent years and your record has been really spot on until now.

 

[natkoden]

I have decided to put this column on an indefinite hiatus. You are welcome to voice your thoughts but further posting for this series is done for the time being.

Don't worry, we get the point. You don't like good games and the final message is: don't buy games, go read a book (that's if you like books, of course)

 

[Sterling]

Don't worry, we get the point. You don't like good games and the final message is: don't buy games, go read a book (that's if you like books, of course)

That's not what he intended and you know it.