719 réponses à ce sujet

[XxPrincess(x)ThreatxX]

General Slotts wrote...

Threat300 wrote...

Shame that everyone in this thread apart from the slightly crazy Seival seems to hate Beyond: Two Souls i enjoyed it

Just slightly crazy? And don't worry Miley Cyrus up there digs it. 

I thought slightly crazy sounded less rude then raging lunatic

[AresKeith]

Threat300 wrote...

Shame that everyone in this thread apart from the slightly crazy Seival seems to hate Beyond: Two Souls i enjoyed it

I don't think the game is terrible but it's Quantic Dream's weakest games and David Cage is the cause of it

Seival just makes it worse lol

[ruggly]

Threat300 wrote...

Shame that everyone in this thread apart from the slightly crazy Seival seems to hate Beyond: Two Souls i enjoyed it

I watched a Let's Play of it because I don't own a PS3.  It's not that it's bad, story is interesting enough though the execution of many parts were lacking for me, I just don't think it really deserves the enormous glorious praise that people throw upon it.  The game isn't my cup of tea, so to speak.

[HiddenInWar]

Watching two best friends play's LP of the game made me enjoy the game more lol.

But Ellen's acting was very good, shes my favorite actress.

[ruggly]

HiddenInWar wrote...

Watching two best friends play's LP of the game made me enjoy the game more lol.

Same one I watched.

[spirosz]

Threat300 wrote...

General Slotts wrote...

Threat300 wrote...

Shame that everyone in this thread apart from the slightly crazy Seival seems to hate Beyond: Two Souls i enjoyed it

Just slightly crazy? And don't worry Miley Cyrus up there digs it. 

I thought slightly crazy sounded less rude then raging lunatic

I enjoyed it quite a bit, but I'm quite aware of it's flaws and how that type of game shouldn't be a criteria for each and every other game to achieve "quality" - where as Seival on the other hand. 

[Seival]

spirosz wrote...

Threat300 wrote...

General Slotts wrote...

Threat300 wrote...

Shame that everyone in this thread apart from the slightly crazy Seival seems to hate Beyond: Two Souls i enjoyed it

Just slightly crazy? And don't worry Miley Cyrus up there digs it. 

I thought slightly crazy sounded less rude then raging lunatic

I enjoyed it quite a bit, but I'm quite aware of it's flaws and how that type of game shouldn't be a criteria for each and every other game to achieve "quality" - where as Seival on the other hand. 

Each video game has subjective flaws, yes. But quality is an objective entity. Beyond: Two Souls quality can be used as an example of how video games should be produced, and how they can be profitable even without being very popular. When a video game is really treated as master artwork by its developers, it will always have the best possible quality, and it will always attract enough fans.

Modifié par Seival, 21 janvier 2014 - 08:08 .

[LPPrince]

Seival wrote...

When a video game is really treated as master artwork by its developers

Thats the excuse Bioware used for their terrible ending to Mass Effect 3 when faced with the enormous backlash towards it

Devs treating their work as art doesn't mean anything anymore

[Seival]

LPPrince wrote...

Seival wrote...

When a video game is really treated as master artwork by its developers

Thats the excuse Bioware used for their terrible ending to Mass Effect 3 when faced with the enormous backlash towards it

Devs treating their work as art doesn't mean anything anymore

This is a subjective flaw, LPPrince. Personally, I find the ending brilliant. And in terms of overall quality ME3 was good enough. Not as good as Beyond: Two Souls, but still good enough.

[Cyonan]

Seival wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

Seival wrote...

When a video game is really treated as master artwork by its developers

Thats the excuse Bioware used for their terrible ending to Mass Effect 3 when faced with the enormous backlash towards it

Devs treating their work as art doesn't mean anything anymore

This is a subjective flaw, LPPrince. Personally, I find the ending brilliant. And in terms of overall quality ME3 was good enough. Not as good as Beyond: Two Souls, but still good enough.

You're going to have an extremely difficult time trying to argue objective quality in a video game, which is by nature a subjective thing.

Really, the only thing you can make a decent argument for is graphical fidelity.

You can't really make objective arguments for gameplay, voice acting, writing, or even aesthetic. You can objectively talk about them, but claims as to how good or bad they are will end up being subjective.

Even if you do argue that the game has good graphics you still can't objectively claim that it looks good. Some people think Minecraft looks better than Crysis 3, and they aren't wrong as long as they're talking about aesthetic rather than graphical fidelity.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

The whole thing just seems overrated.

Seival constantly praises it as the greatest thing since things (Which is usually a good indicator that it really isn't)

Super duper shiny graphics does not a good vidya game make.

[AresKeith]

Ideally tho Seival, you should stop trying to say B:TS and QD should be an example for future games

[spirosz]

Seival wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Threat300 wrote...

General Slotts wrote...

Threat300 wrote...

Shame that everyone in this thread apart from the slightly crazy Seival seems to hate Beyond: Two Souls i enjoyed it

Just slightly crazy? And don't worry Miley Cyrus up there digs it. 

I thought slightly crazy sounded less rude then raging lunatic

I enjoyed it quite a bit, but I'm quite aware of it's flaws and how that type of game shouldn't be a criteria for each and every other game to achieve "quality" - where as Seival on the other hand. 

Each video game has subjective flaws, yes. But quality is an objective entity. Beyond: Two Souls quality can be used as an example of how video games should be produced, and how they can be profitable even without being very popular. When a video game is really treated as master artwork by its developers, it will always have the best possible quality, and it will always attract enough fans.

Well, is it not fair to say that most developers treat their project with respect and want it to be the best it can be, but because of certain deadlines, it won't always turn out the way they imagined?  Sure, Beyond can be used as a good example as for certain types of quality games can produce, but so can games like LIMBO or Journey - it all really depends on what the developers want to achieve and express.  QTE focused might work for some players too, but not for all, it really depends on a lot of variables.  

[Seival]

Cyonan wrote...

Seival wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

Seival wrote...

When a video game is really treated as master artwork by its developers

Thats the excuse Bioware used for their terrible ending to Mass Effect 3 when faced with the enormous backlash towards it

Devs treating their work as art doesn't mean anything anymore

This is a subjective flaw, LPPrince. Personally, I find the ending brilliant. And in terms of overall quality ME3 was good enough. Not as good as Beyond: Two Souls, but still good enough.

You're going to have an extremely difficult time trying to argue objective quality in a video game, which is by nature a subjective thing.

Really, the only thing you can make a decent argument for is graphical fidelity.

You can't really make objective arguments for gameplay, voice acting, writing, or even aesthetic. You can objectively talk about them, but claims as to how good or bad they are will end up being subjective.

Even if you do argue that the game has good graphics you still can't objectively claim that it looks good. Some people think Minecraft looks better than Crysis 3, and they aren't wrong as long as they're talking about aesthetic rather than graphical fidelity.

I'm not arguing, I'm just saying the fact. I'm working in the game development industry as senior tester for over 10 years, and I can judge games quality objectively. This is what I gain salary for, after all. Testers not only finding, posting, checking bugs, and completing countless test cases during a game's production. They record game's performance, check the game from a point of view of common users, test balance and give suggestions on how to improve it. They write reports regarding overall game's quality. Objectively. And also they can subjectively say if they like the game (or some particular feature in it) or not, and why of course.

[xAmilli0n]

AresKeith wrote...

Ideally tho Seival, you should stop trying to say B:TS and QD should be an example for future games

I really liked Beyond: Two Souls for several reason, like the way my ending turned out, and various great moments, but I admit most of it is more personal than it objectivevly being a stand out game.  I worked for me, but I can see it missing with many people.

While I liked it, and I think there are definitely parts from it other devs could learn from, I don't think overall I it was exaplar.

[Seival]

spirosz wrote...

Seival wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Threat300 wrote...

General Slotts wrote...

Threat300 wrote...

Shame that everyone in this thread apart from the slightly crazy Seival seems to hate Beyond: Two Souls i enjoyed it

Just slightly crazy? And don't worry Miley Cyrus up there digs it. 

I thought slightly crazy sounded less rude then raging lunatic

I enjoyed it quite a bit, but I'm quite aware of it's flaws and how that type of game shouldn't be a criteria for each and every other game to achieve "quality" - where as Seival on the other hand. 

Each video game has subjective flaws, yes. But quality is an objective entity. Beyond: Two Souls quality can be used as an example of how video games should be produced, and how they can be profitable even without being very popular. When a video game is really treated as master artwork by its developers, it will always have the best possible quality, and it will always attract enough fans.

Well, is it not fair to say that most developers treat their project with respect and want it to be the best it can be, but because of certain deadlines, it won't always turn out the way they imagined?  Sure, Beyond can be used as a good example as for certain types of quality games can produce, but so can games like LIMBO or Journey - it all really depends on what the developers want to achieve and express.  QTE focused might work for some players too, but not for all, it really depends on a lot of variables.  

Of course not all, and not even most devs treat their games with respect.

Beyond: Two Souls utilizes much more advanced graphical engine and assets than LIMBO or Journey, so Beyond's visual part is technically much better. Objectively.

QTE presents in many games at some capacity. This kind of gameplay is quite diverse and challenging (if designed well of course). Objectively.

Beyond: Two Souls gameplay consists not only of QTEs. Objectively.

Beyond: Two Souls gameplay is very diverse, which is determined by total number of possible actions you can perform, and how exactly controller is used to perform all these actions. Objectively.

Beyond: Two Souls has rather small amount of actual gameplay compared to most other games. Objectively.

[Cyonan]

Seival wrote...
I'm not arguing, I'm just saying the fact. I'm working in the game development industry as senior tester for over 10 years, and I can judge games quality objectively. This is what I gain salary for, after all. Testers not only finding, posting, checking bugs, and completing countless test cases during a game's production. They record game's performance, check the game from a point of view of common users, test balance and give suggestions on how to improve it. They write reports regarding overall game's quality. Objectively. And also they can subjectively say if they like the game (or some particular feature in it) or not, and why of course.

What's objectively better between moving faster with low durability, or moving slower with high durability?

What's objectively better between running at 60FPS 3/4 of the time, or running at 30 FPS all the time?

Note that both of those questions don't actually have a correct answer, and they involve both balance and performance of a game. Personally, I prefer the second one in both questions. I know of plenty of people who would rather have the first, though.

It is also not an objective statement to say "This kind of gameplay is quite diverse and challenging". The objective statement about a QTE's difficulty would be "You must react within X seconds or Y will happen". Skill and reaction time is going to vary from person to person, so what one person finds difficult another will find easy.

As I said, it's extremely hard to make purely objective statements about the quality of a game. Especially considering the overall quality must include elements like gameplay, aesthetic, voice acting, and writing.

[Arcian]

Seival wrote...

Cyonan wrote...

Seival wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

Seival wrote...

When a video game is really treated as master artwork by its developers

Thats the excuse Bioware used for their terrible ending to Mass Effect 3 when faced with the enormous backlash towards it

Devs treating their work as art doesn't mean anything anymore

This is a subjective flaw, LPPrince. Personally, I find the ending brilliant. And in terms of overall quality ME3 was good enough. Not as good as Beyond: Two Souls, but still good enough.

You're going to have an extremely difficult time trying to argue objective quality in a video game, which is by nature a subjective thing.

Really, the only thing you can make a decent argument for is graphical fidelity.

You can't really make objective arguments for gameplay, voice acting, writing, or even aesthetic. You can objectively talk about them, but claims as to how good or bad they are will end up being subjective.

Even if you do argue that the game has good graphics you still can't objectively claim that it looks good. Some people think Minecraft looks better than Crysis 3, and they aren't wrong as long as they're talking about aesthetic rather than graphical fidelity.

I'm not arguing, I'm just saying the fact. I'm working in the game development industry as senior tester for over 10 years, and I can judge games quality objectively.

I'm going to have to challenge this statement and say that no, you can't.

[Cyonan]

Arcian wrote...

Seival wrote...

Cyonan wrote...

Seival wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

Seival wrote...

When a video game is really treated as master artwork by its developers

Thats the excuse Bioware used for their terrible ending to Mass Effect 3 when faced with the enormous backlash towards it

Devs treating their work as art doesn't mean anything anymore

This is a subjective flaw, LPPrince. Personally, I find the ending brilliant. And in terms of overall quality ME3 was good enough. Not as good as Beyond: Two Souls, but still good enough.

You're going to have an extremely difficult time trying to argue objective quality in a video game, which is by nature a subjective thing.

Really, the only thing you can make a decent argument for is graphical fidelity.

You can't really make objective arguments for gameplay, voice acting, writing, or even aesthetic. You can objectively talk about them, but claims as to how good or bad they are will end up being subjective.

Even if you do argue that the game has good graphics you still can't objectively claim that it looks good. Some people think Minecraft looks better than Crysis 3, and they aren't wrong as long as they're talking about aesthetic rather than graphical fidelity.

I'm not arguing, I'm just saying the fact. I'm working in the game development industry as senior tester for over 10 years, and I can judge games quality objectively.

I'm going to have to challenge this statement and say that no, you can't.

I think in this case, your avatar is the only response needed =P

[wolfsite]

Seival wrote...

Cyonan wrote...

Seival wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

Seival wrote...

When a video game is really treated as master artwork by its developers

Thats the excuse Bioware used for their terrible ending to Mass Effect 3 when faced with the enormous backlash towards it

Devs treating their work as art doesn't mean anything anymore

This is a subjective flaw, LPPrince. Personally, I find the ending brilliant. And in terms of overall quality ME3 was good enough. Not as good as Beyond: Two Souls, but still good enough.

You're going to have an extremely difficult time trying to argue objective quality in a video game, which is by nature a subjective thing.

Really, the only thing you can make a decent argument for is graphical fidelity.

You can't really make objective arguments for gameplay, voice acting, writing, or even aesthetic. You can objectively talk about them, but claims as to how good or bad they are will end up being subjective.

Even if you do argue that the game has good graphics you still can't objectively claim that it looks good. Some people think Minecraft looks better than Crysis 3, and they aren't wrong as long as they're talking about aesthetic rather than graphical fidelity.

I'm not arguing, I'm just saying the fact. I'm working in the game development industry as senior tester for over 10 years, and I can judge games quality objectively. This is what I gain salary for, after all. Testers not only finding, posting, checking bugs, and completing countless test cases during a game's production. They record game's performance, check the game from a point of view of common users, test balance and give suggestions on how to improve it. They write reports regarding overall game's quality. Objectively. And also they can subjectively say if they like the game (or some particular feature in it) or not, and why of course.

If you were saying fact you would be supplying links and evidence to support your case, you have not done any of this.

All you have done is boosted your opinon and claimed it as fact and ignored any evidence that contradicted your personal view showing it in error.

[Chashan]

Cyonan wrote...

You're going to have an extremely difficult time trying to argue objective quality in a video game, which is by nature a subjective thing.

Really, the only thing you can make a decent argument for is graphical fidelity.

You can't really make objective arguments for gameplay, voice acting, writing, or even aesthetic. You can objectively talk about them, but claims as to how good or bad they are will end up being subjective.

Even if you do argue that the game has good graphics you still can't objectively claim that it looks good. Some people think Minecraft looks better than Crysis 3, and they aren't wrong as long as they're talking about aesthetic rather than graphical fidelity.

To be fair, there can be some objective criteria involved with gameplay. Such as: accessibility of the interface, intuitiveness of controls.

Made a short excursion to Dark Souls on PC these last few days, and in both those categories, it was something of a mess. No adjustment of the tooltips to keyboard+mouse layout, clunky controls, etc.*
Yes, there is the advice to "get a controller", but then again even the developers themselves admitted they'd work on a better conversion to PC with Dark Souls 2.

*Side-note: I'll still give the game a chance. May have to finally part ways with my ol', trusty 2-button-and-wheel mouse for one with a few more buttons on hand, should prove useful for other games too.

[spirosz]

Dark Souls IMO was made for the consoles, that port is terrible. Still a great game, but a terrible port will ruin the experience for you.

And on being a game tester, that doesn't mean you're opinion means more than those who just play the games. How many games have slipped by "testers" and have horrible aspects to them? I can name five off my hand right now.