racketboy.com

An elitist yells at anyone who mentions any game that they don't like. But their tastes are based on what the majority says, or opposite what the majority says so they can look "different". A knowledgeable gamer plays games and likes what he has fun playing.

The thing with games is that any given game will resonate with each person differently, much like other forms of entertainment. As far as I'm concerned, games are still a very individual experience, no matter how "social" or multiplayer capable they're trying to make them at the moment.

I personally don't like Halo, Final Fantasy 7, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare or The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. (Yes, seriously.) Those games don't resonate with me, and just because they don't doesn't mean I have poor taste in games. I love plenty of other games, even other entries in those respective franchises. Because gaming is such an individual experience, we tend to foster incredibly strong opinions about our likes and dislikes, and unfortunately it's very easy to get on the defensive when someone else is critical of what we like.

If someone comes off as an elitist snob because they love a particular game to the detriment of all others like it, that's OK. I consider it pretty amazing that a single game can have that kind of effect on someone. Part of forums like this is to get together and talk about what you love, and what other people love, and hopefully we can find some common ground -- love of games -- to bring us together, rather than nitpicking what each loves and doesn't love to drive us apart.

the7k wrote:Games like Call of Duty are kinda like the McDonald's of video games. They aren't anything special

Nice to know I'm not the only person who feels that way about that particular series.

Defining quality and good taste is an interesting thing. To me, it really comes down to a few things. Can a person tell the difference between a game with substance and one that doesn't have substance. I see games with mediocre gameplay get great review scores all the time because they won people over with a gimmick or a unique graphical style despite very mediocre gameplay(Alien Hominid, Odin Sphere). That's not good taste in my opinion. A person with good taste isn't easily swayed by style, gimmicks, hype or mainstream popularity, they simply want a game with quality gameplay. These people can look past the gimmicks, the hype, the style, etc. and see a game for what it really is

I also think people with good taste generally tend to look for those things that don't have mass market appeal. Sure, there are quality movies, games, albums, ect. out there that are popular and have achieved mass appeal and popularity, but in my experience, in pretty much every entertainment medium, the overwhelming majority of quality stuff is not known by the masses

I generally find that people with good taste have an interest in things that are unconventional and innovative(because everything else is just boring, typical and usually aimed at the lowest common denominator), artistic(but with substance), intelligent in some way(something that can mentally stimulate your mind, unlike let's say, reality television)and show real, genuine effort(compare the amount of work that goes into a really good, serialized tv show versus a cheap, budget friendly, brainless reality tv show)

Nobody can really judge good taste though. It's a very personal thing and trying to say what represents good taste with any kind of authority basically makes you an elitist. So in light of that, if you agree with what I said that's great. If not, that's cool too

the7k wrote:Games like Halo and Call of Duty are kinda like the McDonald's of video games.

Hey, the original Call of Duty kicked ass.

Well McDonald's worked damn hard to get where they are. Like them or not, thier icon's for a reason.

Same for call of duty and halo.

I think its also unfair to say that only innovative games can be good or well made. A game that does things other games have done, but hones them to a razor's edge is just as good in my book.

Do something new, or do something very well, either one works for me.

Hatta wrote:There's nothing wrong with being elitist, as long as you're not a dick about it.

This.

Just because McDonald's is well-known the world over doesn't mean they are cooking with high-quality ingredients.

By that token, the Halo and COD series...

I mean, hey, I'd be lying if I said I haven't enjoyed a good game of Halo 2, LAN Partied, Room vs Room with no radars, with only sticky nades and swords. I'd also be lying if I said I haven't had a McRib combo recently.

the7k wrote:Knowing that, say, Bioshock was a better game than Bioshock II

"Knowing?"
Don't you mean "thinking?" That's the entire problem with elitists and fanboy's. They seem to imagine that their opinion is a fact instead of what it actually is. Just an opinion that holds no more importance than anyone elses.

Gamerforlife wrote:I see games with mediocre gameplay get great review scores all the time because they won people over with a gimmick or a unique graphical style despite very mediocre gameplay(Alien Hominid, Odin Sphere). That's not good taste in my opinion. A person with good taste isn't easily swayed by style, gimmicks, hype or mainstream popularity, they simply want a game with quality gameplay. These people can look past the gimmicks, the hype, the style, etc. and see a game for what it really is

Who are you to define the undefinable? "Taste" is a concept. Not a rule. You (Nor anyone) can measure someones opinion on the quality of an object and tell them they are wrong just because they don't meet your standards of what "good taste" is. Also, why should a "gimmick" (As you call it) like a unique graphical style or something not be able to measure up whether or not a persona enjoys a game? Things like that are just one of many aspects of a video game (As well as gameplay, story, characters and many many other things) that add up to equal whether or not a person finds a video game fun.

Mendoza wrote:Well McDonald's worked damn hard to get where they are. Like them or not, thier icon's for a reason.

McDonald's did not get anywhere from being good at making food. They were the first of their kind, were masterful at iconography, and embraced (and remain for many people a poster-child for the negative aspects of) the ethics and practices of rapid corporate globalization. I say fuck 'em. I don't dole out my respect just because someone worked hard if they didn't work for the greater good. So they did a bunch of foul shit for the sake of their pocket books over the well-being of their own customers -- maybe I'm stingy, but I won't support that with respect nor my dollars. Same goes for the EA's and Activisions of the world.

Anyway, in terms of judging quality in video games, I think we should remember that individuals are looking for distinctly different things in video games... GamerforLife described taste more or less as the ability to recognize the masterful implementation of solid and/or progressive gameplay mechanics, condemning a value for graphical prowess over that of gameplay. I'm not so sure I completely agree, because I personally hold artistic design in high regard in video games... there's a real value to me in the design of the environments in Panzer Dragoon, NiGHTS, and Rez as well as the way the superrealistic (as in the artistic discipline, not the graphical fidelity) sensibilities of Shenmue come together in order to produce that certain effect. If gameplay itself were the only thing that made a video game quality, then I don't think that any self-respecting gamer would be caught dead playing an RPG, for instance.

MrEco wrote:Also, why should a "gimmick" (As you call it) like a unique graphical style or something not be able to measure up whether or not a persona enjoys a game? Things like that are just one of many aspects of a video game (As well as gameplay, story, characters and many many other things) that add up to equal whether or not a person finds a video game fun.

Yeah, I don't think the guy was too far off, in that there's a value in being able to strip away the fluff in order to see things objectively, but I find myself more aligned with this view. Except that I would replace "fun" with "compelling". I know that this is probably an eye-roller, but I really do think that we should stop limiting the criteria for what makes a great game to that single emotion (and I've felt that way even BEFORE I saw the Rev Rant that popularized that view, haha: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otyXtzLNxoI).