see, i usually don’t like RPG romances either, but mostly b/c they ruin the element of escapism. i’m in college rn, and “everybody in the world is a horny bisexual person” basically describes my day-to-day. sometimes i want a break from that.
Tangent on romance: Has there ever been a game where there's only one or two people interested in you but you can try with everyone? And there's actual unrequited love? Most NPCs will never be with you? I know of none; it's always hordes of "horny bisexuals". The most jarring example being maybe Dragon's Dogma 1. Where even the married 60 y.o. Blacksmith is a love interest for your spunky adventurer. And you don't even get to choose who you will romance, the game picks for you!
Interesting point. In a lot of cases where a romance isn't available, but was considered as a possibility - such as Cyberpunk's Judy for male characters - people will get upset and state some very abysmal criticism. Similarly, Serana from Skyrim is modded into a romance interest even though not being one is a part of her character. I think those players play games to have a world where everyone and everything serves them. It's understandable to a certain point, in my opinion. I would definitely want to see a game where the player can be a treated with more one-sided attraction.
I'm absolutely obsessed with your channel now. I'm a Gamer of a Certain Age, and often find myself yelling "Exactly! This man gets it!" at my monitor while watching your videos. This video is one I yelled at a lot.
I really liked Outer Worlds, I wish my friends would have given it more of a chance. My only complaint with the game is there’s no third person mode. With all the great outfit designs and cool locations, I want to see what my character looks like outside the inventory menu.
I only say a game is objectively bad when it's objectively broken. Most major titles aren't broken broken but baddly optmised but then some do fall into that bad faith production.
There’s very little out there that would not be liked / subscribed to by at least someone. Including (I’d say objectively) very bad products or bad ideas. Such as Ed Wood’s films (haven’t seen them, no opinion on them, but know they’re widely considered bad) or the idea that the Earth is flat. While I agree with your general sentiment, I believe there are things out there that can be called bad - without necessarily adding ‘in my opinion’
@vembdev right. I love watching "bad" films because they are often accidentally the best comedies. Same for games like Gollum. Falling through the floor and into oblivion at important moments is funny.
I just saw an interview with Adam Jones, guitarist of Tool. Turns out he and I share a life rule. When watching a movie, or playing a game, do it with the mindset you had when you were 12 years old! Enjoy the awesome parts, forgive the poor parts, stay as long as you are enjoying yourself. It is an awesome way to enjoy your art, and once you lose the external pressure of "bad taste" etc, your life will be way easier and more enjoyable. Half the art is in the perception anyway, some things just doesn't fit you and thats great, go enjoy something that makes you feel twelve again!
Mortim always seems to want to enjoy games, and seeks to understand them on their own terms. He's also very open about his biases. That's what i love about his reviews personally.
The video essay crowd really seems to favor reacting like a raw nerve. All too often their videos are little more than "I liked this" or "I didn't like this" followed by an hour long summary with about 5 minutes of opinion commentary. Incentivizing watch time creates some weird content.
I always thought fallout new vegas was a bad game when it was launched when I was a kid because I thought it was a straight forward scripted game but when I found out there was a shortcut to Vegas than the long traditional way to go to Vegas. My perspective of the game has changed. It was the best fallout ever made specially you can see a lot of passions that the developers put into the game
One of my favorite series is called legacy of kain. Oh it has a lot of issues but it's story and voice acting was SSS tier making up for everything else
A bad game depends on the perspective. For a player: Not enjoyable. For a reviewer: Not hypeable. For a publisher: Not profitable. For a developer: Not fixable.
I like this comment. I’ve always said that a bad game is subjective, but you pointed out how it’s subjective. Specifically, a game is bad for you if you didn’t get what you wanted from it. For a developer, I’d say a game is bad if it doesn’t turn out how they wanted it to be. Because I’ve had games that shipped close to what I wanted but that didn’t sell or review well. They are still good games to me.
Hi tim! I have always wanted to make games but always found myself getting in my own way due to just thinking I cant do it or thinking I need the most advanced knowledge of X programming language to get it done. Thanks to your videos and insistence of the idea that you can 'just make any game' by any means necessary helped me get over that. I've finally found a comfortable niche for myself in godot and in the past few days have made a playable level with a tileset I made following tutorials, a basic melee weapon, and im now implementing my first enemy NPC with attacks and pathfinding AI. I understand this isnt even a demo or anything to show anyone yet, but still. This is further than I have ever been and I feel more and more comfortable carving this new groove everyday. I just wanted to say thank you for sharing your experiences and perspectives and overall positivity!
About the Outer worlds, i played it at launch and i had fun with it, to be honest i like a lot the humor of the game. There are things that i dislike for sure but that happens with every game i play, there is no perfect game.
I've complained about it here, having purchased it excitedly on release and dropped it three quarters of the way through. I've never called it bad. it's certainly a polished, professional-looking game. It's just that none of the characters or settings managed to capture my interest enough to make me care about their plight or how their stories resolve.
Cain touches onto something that I think people have forgotten about: finding a critic whose tastes align with yours. It's not about having the right opinion or joining some mob mentality, but finding stuff you will like while avoiding the stuff you won't. One of my favorite reviewers for movies helped me to see tons of movies I absolutely loved while also avoiding movies that when I did see them on TV or as a rental, I genuinely loathed. A good critic who aligns with your taste will help you save time and money.
@@lrinfi I didn't say to only listen to critics. Reviews are a tool. Yes, one should be willing to go out and be adventurous from time to time. But the older I get, the more valuable my time becomes. I'm not a teenager or young adult anymore, and I no longer want to possibly waste my time on a game, show, or book that I may very well end up hating. This goes for recommendations from friends, family, and co-workers. That being said, I stopped listening to the elitist crowing about how Souls game are sooooo hard and played Bloodborne, and not only did I beat it and have fun, I also found it not all that hard. I still look for new things on my own, and sometimes it leads to a great time, while at other times I'm throwing a paperback novel across my room. Them's the breaks.
Use it as fuel! I've been writing down every little thing that I dislike in modern games so that I can attempt to make a game that does it better. Make the things you want to see!
I find it important to remember; what we are looking for in media is often something we feel we are missing in real life. If the game doesn’t have that thing, we may dismiss the game out of hand. Hence “game bad” becomes “game not what I wanted”.
I like it when you come across a game which has some clear shortcomings but you still love it because it's so unique that nit-picking about some aspect feels like an insult of sorts.
This is definitely a place where so much of the nuance in discussing games/books/shows/etc. gets missed. Calling things 'bad' might on the surface initially feel more authoritative and like the critique is coming from a place of expertise, but in fact the vagueness of it comes across as the opposite, especially to anyone in the audience who had a different experience, or didn't have as big an issue with the things listed in the critique. Learning to phrase critiques in terms of what you did and didn't enjoy or what specific features really ruined your experience isn't about pulling punches on a critique, it's more just a matter of learning to phrase a critique in a way that makes it more specific and accurate to the information you have available. Appreciated this discussion, really brings to light some of the nuances in discourse on creative work that are not always well understood.
The opposite also happens, I'm sure everyone has a few very well regarded games they don't click with for whatever reason (setting, gameplay or narrative choices, etc) but it's almost a sacrilege to even say that game isn't for you.
Saying the game is not for you isn't the problem, saying the game is bad is. You can like bad games, and you can dislike good games. The problem lies when your definition of "good" or "bad" relies exclusively on your experience playing the game. And you ignore more objective things like: - how buggy it is. - how much content there is for that specific type of game (and its price). - does it push for aggressive microtransaction that intrude on your playing experience - how stable is the connection and how good are the servers (for multiplayer games) - what is the experience of other people in those areas - I've had a lot of people say that they didn't have issues with the bugs of Cyberpunk 2077 at launch, on PC. From that they concluded that the issues were exclusively on consoles. But it's a fake conclusion, because many people (myself included) experienced tons of bugs with it. Then there's the issues of what kind of bugs are a problem: many claimed that they experienced no bugs, but when questioned further, they clarifying that they experienced no "game-breaking" bugs - in the sense that they could finish the game and all the quests. This means that they dismiss bugs that cause crashes, or that cause objects to fall through the "floor", and all sorts of other bugs that can still diminish your playing experience. So feel free to dislike, say, Baldur's Gate 3. But don't say that it's a bad game - it's just not for you. I have my own personal issues with it, but I also wouldn't say it's a bad game, because it's not fair.
Oh, I've got lots of those. But if I just mention somewhere that i didn't like Dark Souls or hated numerical 3D Fallouts and TeS, or R6S and Finals... Or that I don't see any difference between any popular online shooter and the next one even if they belong to different genres... People go crazy and try to make me believe that I just don't know anything.
i don't think technical issues make a game bad. Just like bad performance doesn't make the song bad. It's poor execution, not idea. Also the content thing, IMHO is a bit subjective. I'd much rather pay 30$ for a game that has 10-20 hours of solid story and interesting gameplay ( like Syberia 1 or 2, life is strange, mirror's edge or anything like that ) than 60$ for an ultimate 190+h long + dlc + multiplayer + sequel deep story openworld rpg experience (like most modern games are). I didn't have any major bugs on release in 2077. I once fell through the floor when exiting car, had one companion NPC passing through staircase (fixed by luring him out and going in again) and once or twice i caught T pose on bike. That's like 20 hours of game and never happened again. Actually, subsequent patches that were supposed to fix bugs introduced said bugs in my game. The repulsive window, bug with two cops and neighbor quest, Takemura not calling etc. Patch note says "fixed", my game says otherwise :) that was funny tho. And the game breaking thing for me was the game itself. It’s gunplay, useless skills (until 1.6 or 2.0), completely random clothing and guns etc. Interesting story, setting, some gameplay mechanics. But totally not my kind of game because of how Borderlands-like everything else is.
@@zhulikkulik "Also the content thing, IMHO is a bit subjective." - well, yes, the content should be engaging, I should have written that, my bad. But you ignore the "for that type of game" part. Of course that a game like "Life is strange" or "Mirror's Edge" is going to be different from an open-world game with a lot of stuff to do. "like most modern games are" - are you sure about that? There are literally thousands of games released each year - a short search tells me that "Over 14,000 games were released on Steam in 2023". Obviously there will be plenty of console exclusives on top of that. You shouldn't limit yourself to AAA or AA games, there is a wealth of games outside of that. I agree that one type of issue alone (like bugs), doesn't make the game bad, but put enough different types of issues together and they do make it bad, if they heavily overwhelm the good parts. For "technical issues" specifically - it doesn't matter how much fun the game is, if you can't play it! If it constantly and frequently crashes, if it's unplayable due to extreme stuttering, if it's online-only but you are frequently disconnected: all of those are MASSIVE problems that need to be fixed ASAP. My point was that the problem is when people ignore that issue: "Well, it's not an issue for me." - okay, but you are not the only person playing the game. If enough paying customers think like that, this prevents the company from improving their game: why make better games if the suckers will buy our broken messes? The best recent example is with Bethesda and Starfield.
@owingUp84 Saying "the game isn't for me" isn't even worth saying, why waste the bandwidth or the air? As if anyone cares. Imagine actual discussions like this.. Comment #1: "I liked the game" Comment #2 "The game isn't for me". With N and M likes respectively. Now that's interesting and informative!
Totally agree. Is too common on the internet to find people trying to pass their opinion as objective truth. It's silly, it shows immaturity. Or plain narcissism, which makes sense since narcissist are over represented on the internet, for obvious reasons.
Games are such multi-faceted works that even a game you consider "bad" can be a source of inspiration. I've played so many janky old DOS games that are nowhere near fun but still full of creative and brilliant design ideas that I'd love to see polished up.
I've always found "bad games" that are ambitious, and try new things, but maybe don't do them well... infinitely more interesting than the "good games" that don't really aspire to anything new or different, but execute everything they do well.
@@Netherfly I wish the industry more reliably put money into those types of games. In the 80s and 90s Sega put out so many ambitious and interesting games. Whether the actual experience of playing them was fun, there was always a mountain of interesting ideas. They weren't afraid to publish total jank, and it led to so many cool games.
@@smellvadordali9806 sega got quite the glow-up recently, they're finally trying that strategy of spending a lot of money over a series of smaller projects. No thanks to pachinko regulations in Japan ramping up, but hey. I'm just happy that they're one of the companies trying things out again.
If you like DOS games, have you checked out eXoDOS 6 yet? 7,633 DOS games. So ,amy games you could start a YT channel covering just what's in the pack. Oh and they're all preconfigured and you can set global settings, and do all sorts of cool stuff. Most of them work right out of the box, though I've found a few duds. They also have Fallout 1 on there, just FYI.
@@Netherfly Case in Point: Dragon's Dogma 2 is one of the latter games. It played it's cards as an RPG so safe, there is exactly one armor and weapon option for the type you have chosen at any progression point in the story. No side grades. No interesting features. And everything that made the first game great was neutered, such as pawns learning and changing their behavior by themselves. Ironically the first Dragon's Dogma was the former, a janky and weird game, that nailed a few things and tried out new stuff. It revolutionized, just for the franchise to make 3 steps backwards on the follow-up titles. Maddening.
I agree with you, but I do find the discussions on certain video games being good or bad interesting. However something can be objectively bad, like technical problems. Another thing to point out that I feel a lot of gamers forget is that criticism doesn't equal hate. You can love something and still be critical about it. I have yet to play a perfect game, and I doubt it exist or ever will. That's part of the charm I guess. After all video games are made by imperfect creatures.
I completely agree with you. And sometimes something objectively bad like a crash bug doesn't lead to a bad game. I have save scummed my way through games that frequently crashed, because I loved the games.
I think it's weird when people claim a game loved by many is objectively bad, but I think its also weird how people claim to like broken garbage. And that exists. I play a lot of random stuff and some people and companies just don't give a damn. When people call Gollum the worst game of the year, its kinda... well it is not. There are 10.000 new games on Steam each year. A lot of totally broken crap.
I own over a thousand games on Steam and hundreds more on GOG and Epic. I don’t think I’ve ever given a negative review. If I do consider a game “bad”, it’s definitely from a subjective point of view. The only exceptions would be games that are horribly buggy and abandoned. Or games that have predatory monetization schemes.
The comment about not really talking about games you don't like is interesting because like... there are definitely games or stories or whatever I don't like and I just don't talk about them, but if there is one type of game or story which will keep me talking (and, honestly, probably excessively ragging on) about it long after I've dropped it is games which are (for me) _almost_ great. Games which have something amazing which I find very compelling and utterly butcher the delivery so I feel (admittedly unfairly) robbed of something that could have been absolutely wonderful. I think this is true for other people in substantial part too-people don't hate on games they just dislike but on games that they _want_ to like but don't.
I refer to games as “bad” because I believe it to be predatory. Utilizing people's psychological vulnerabilities as leverage to obtain payment. When BG3 performed so well, it gave me great joy because it demonstrated that you could succeed without being a predator.
While I agree that ought to be considered objectively bad for the industry & society to have games designed around predatory monetization and gambling, the gameplay itself still needs to be designed to be at least enjoyable for as wide an audience as possible for those predatory practices to be succesful and worthwhile to implement. The gameplay design is still an artform and thus subjective. The monetization strategies that manipulate and exploit the customer in an objectively harmful way; we can agree that is objectively BAD, even if the game itself might be very enjoyable for some.
Anything that's unplayable is bad game, mainly technical issues and stay that way. When someone calls aaa games bad it means its boring and not worth the time. Something like current auicide squad is a example of this, its not worst but bad due to being boring. Can someone like it probably, it has good movement.
Interesting. I often categorize stuff in my mind as objectively good or bad, and despite it being my own take and not based off the thoughts of reviews or units sold, it often does not coincide with what I like and dislike.
When a game is unpleasant for you, that's a great thing to explore to become a better designer. "Why was that experience so bad for me?" Sometimes the game just isn't for you. I'm not the target audience for Barbie and Her Sisters: Puppy Rescue, but I'm sure someone loved that game and wants more of it.
When listening to this I was thinking about how over time the same people can who made a game I loved would make another game I hated, and then yet another I loved again. There are a lot of people who forget that games are made by people, and people can change their mind about different aspects of development over time.And a second thing I thought, it's a worse feeling to play a game all your friends love and you dislike, than to check out a game on your own that you ended up disliking.
Another thing to bear in mind is that I, like most game developers, have never made two games with exactly the same team members. Different people bring different skills and ideas to the production.
Every game has its flaws, but i have never said a game was bad. I'm currently playing jrpgs, but I loved every game I played in my life, even if some of them weren't my cup of tea. I simply love gaming.
In regard to thinking there is no objective metric in which to define a bad game. Easiest one to point to is functionality. Does this game mechanic work? Is the hitbox right size,does the game run,how much does it crash. As for story writing. Does this story make sense. Are there any plot holes and contrivances? Is the story finished? Do the characters traits match their actions and goals? These things regardless of how people feel about something can be objectively measured
Bad games should mean, it has horrible things in it, like ultra realistic violence, incentives to make the player make evil choices like rewards for bad behavior.. like the whole goal for the player is to be a bad person.
Mortismal Gaming is THE gaming review channel and, as you say, sometimes I don't agree with him because he may like or dislike different things from what I usually look for in a game, yet I always find him as much objective as he can. He always tries to give an impartial opinion and doesn't let his own ego prevail. By the way congratulation on almost reaching 100k subs, gonna hang the youtube button behind your back, I hope, will be another relic for you to save :D
Mortismal Gaming is definitely aligned with my tastes in gaming/RPGs. But I do feel he was a bit too lenient on Rogue Trader which basically was released in a broken state, and progressively gets worse towards the end acts.
@@akar2755 Agreed, especially considering how much he loved Wrath of the Righteous. It seems like Mort would have been a part of the group that really held Owlcat accountable, for what it's worth.
@@akar2755Mort really (really really) loves Wrath of the Righteous, and compares a lot to the game, and doesn't really see the flaws of it (like almost at all, which he doesn't really hide, since he always says that "some people might dislike X in the WoTR, but I personally have no problem/like it/love it"). Even outside of bugs and whatnot, every single design decision in WoTR is beloved by Mort. That's why he is very lenient about Owlcat recent masterpiece of the cRPG. Now, I don't think it was broken-broken, but it was as expected, from previous Owlcat games, on the same level as WoTR, gladly not on Kingmaker (now that game was really broken). I adore WoTR as well, it is an outstanding cRPG, but without essaying further, lol, Mort is clearly biased towards WoTR, and by-proxy, towards Rogue Trader, and overall to the Owlcat (outside of even bugs, just to some design choices they make over and over and over again)
Late reply, I agree with you about Mortismal, it is a good review channel. My only "narcissistic" issue with him is that I *know* he didn't play out Planescape: Torment. The review of the game tells me that, and the fact that he talks about it using the same 5 sentences every (rare) time it is mentioned is confirmation. That to me is a problem simply because, in my opinion, that game is a cornerstone game when it comes to understanding the genre. Another "narcissistic" issue: why did BG3 ship without real-time with pause as an option? That is an essential part of that IPs identity, and the fact that all of that was glossed over and not made a conversation topic also rubbed me the wrong way. I wish Mort called that out instead of fanboying over Larian.
I definitely agree with what you said about the romance in a lot of games. I do think it can be well done if it is written like a real relationship, not as though all party members will go for anything that moves and has a couple good lines.
Just ignoring the writing entirely, I think romances would be better if they tended to be more systemically interesting. Most romances are little more than "give gifts, receive sex," or "select dialog options marked with the heart symbol, receive sex." And as a result are just... boring, and pretty condescending -- like they're less interested in "romance" than they are naked appeals to horny teenagers. One thing I like about the Fire Emblem games -- again, *ignoring* the writing here -- is how NPC relationships are based on in-game actions. For two characters to have a relationship, romantic or otherwise, they have to frequently work together in battle. And the ensuing romantic relationship is less of a reward in and of itself than it is narrative context for the *systemic* rewards paired units can get (EG stat bonuses, et al).
@@Netherfly This is what I meant, actually. I'm sure that I am missing the line between writing and design here, but I prefer gameplay that reinforces a good story to clever dialogue that doesn't match actions.
The 'weird horny bisexual worlds' make sense to me. Most of these characters in these games are about a WILDLY dangerous lifestyle. We don't really take into account how risky standard 'adventurer' behavior is. But if you are living every day where you could wind up dead due to single mistake, and are surrounded by people who have died in those conditions, then you're going to live a more rash lifestyle by definition. What always stood out to me as needing improvement in writing was the tonal dissonance as most stories simply ignore this aspect of the characters involved. Like I'm playing this game right now, some kid wants to be an adventurer so local guild just says 'go kill some goblins' and I'm thinking to myself how can this untrained teen single handedly beat a half dozen intelligent, armed, belligerent human-like beings and just act like this is a totally normal thing for children to do.
I love how Divinity Original Sin 2 did it. not like it was "real", but like it was a fun lighthearted comedic romance book. not some extremely sad photorealistic drama where one of the characters dies and becomes overweight and... or worse, what's usual in games, extremely simplistic nothing burgers.
@@yurisonovab3892You don't flip a switch and become bisexual/gay/straight just because you're in a dangerous environment or are leading a dangerous lifestyle. I used to leave in a dangerous city for years (where I was mugged once), and everytime I left my house, especially when I studied at night, I had to be on the lookout, avoiding certain places/neighbourhoods/dark corners... that daily feeling of alertness didn't change my sexuality or made me "hornier" just because I knew I could end up seriously hurt or dead after a mugging attempt or something... If anything, it made me less "horny" as I was just exhausted to even think about relationships and sex. Not to mention that this trend usually paints bisexuals as horny deviants or something...
I'll be honest, it took me a minute to get into The Outer Worlds. I don't know why. But I'm glad I stuck with it because once it "clicked" I fell in love. There are very few games I want to play more than once, but I've played it twice, watched my husband play it, and would play again if I had time. And the thing is, I'm not even playing differently each time! I still make the same decisions, go with the same companions. I just adore it and am so excited for the sequel.
A quick comment on the marketing of Outer Worlds (a game I enjoyed) and "lots of games say made by creators of X". The problem wasn't in mentioning Obsidian's prior projects, it was in failing to manage expectations when the "from the creators of Fallout: New Vegas" had so much impact relative to Bethesda's utter disappointment of the New Vegas-loving crowd. Recall the controversy over the "Yes, Yes, No, Sarcastic Yes" dialogue design, the stripping down of choice & consequence, etc. To be completely clear beyond a shadow of a doubt: I am still discovering new pathways that Josh & co accounted for all those years ago despite a dozen playthroughs (this is true of your Arcanum as well!), but after a handful of Outer Worlds playthroughs I feel like I've already seen all there will ever be to see and all too often the experience is *only* A, B, or C decisions. Outer Worlds has plenty of merit in terms of gameplay, systems design, etc. Hell it even exceeded my expectations in its stability and performance, which I believe is much more important than people typically give credit for. Bottom line: should consumers be more conservative when managing their own expectations? Yes! But game devs can also be more nuanced and self-aware in the way they shape consumer expectation with their marketing. It's much better to overdeliver!
Yeah, I fully agree. I think Tim has a lot of solid takes and is usually very open-minded, but that comment came off as a bit of a cope on his end. The marketing set expectations for Outer Worlds waaay too high which made the game a rather underwhelming experience.
People called Outer Worlds bad but because it was a talking heads game with no exploring or weird side areas(they never looked for them there was alot of those), and then when starfield came out where you literally have to make your own fun didn't understand what to do. If you read this, I loved The Outer Worlds.
I don't even believe you paid any attention when you played the outer worlds. It oozes story and style. I have a growing theory now that a growing number of gamers are losing their ability to appreciate the work that goes into games because they are just consuming games akin to eating because being bored. I blame the pavlovian design decisions that players need to be rewarded so often that they lose the ability to just enjoy the "stop and smell the roses" experience when playing the game.
@@Tenzarin why would I appreciate getting bored? I've played a lot, and I mean a lot, of games and this one just doesn't show anything I haven't seen better somewhere else. It's truly mediocre. It has no real creative drive.
Ok, you consider it "truly mediocre and no real creative drive", can you give some examples of that in The Outer Worlds? Edit: I'll take your silence that your opinion is bad because you do not want to explain it in more detail.
Imagine thinking that you won an internet - so asynchronous - discussion with a total stranger with unknown schedule, available free time etc, because he did not respond within some arbitrary time limit you picked without even saying so.
hey, Tim! im playing through The Outer Worlds right now and i love it so much. The world and the characters feel so real and engaging. thank you so much! also, i love your videos.
"Everyone in the world is a horny bisexual person." THANK YOU. That's the issue with the BG3 romance system. The game overall is fantastic, but it just feels so weird and immersion-breaking to have literally every single companion proposition you.
There is subjectively bad *in terms of taste* and subjectively bad compared to *other games & industry standards.* When people say a game is "bad" they usually refer to the latter. And a game with good elements can still be "bad" overall, when compared to the standards of the industry. For example, there are numerous examples with good mechanics, animations, graphics, modes etc that are still considered "bad" because of (i) over-the-top monetization/gambling, (ii) offering a worse experience (less choices or weaker mechanics) than a previous entry, or (iii) being obviously rushed-to-release with many broken or missing parts.
Sometimes bad (non-predatory) games can be fun to play, like David Cage games which I find have the potential to be so comically bad they loop around to being good again. We need more of those!
In art there are skills that are objectively good or bad and there are some objectively good or bad. For example, if someone is unable to draw a straight line, they they're objectively bad at drawing. But if they make a picture with a message or expression you don't like, or goes into topics you don't think are worth your time, then they're subjectively bad. I firmly believe all arts - including writing, movies, but also videogames - have aspects that can be either objectively or subjectively bad. The objective ones are just difficult to define, and are things like "the ability to set up a scene", "the ability to build tension", "the ability to communicate information" etc.
I found something interesting trying old fallout and kinda comparing to outer worlds or wven new vegas its kinda way more deep and lively while being 2d. I think the isometric world view gives more life abd character to these games than just fiest or tps view.
I hate it when people describe something as "objectively bad." Not only is "bad" a matter of taste, and therefore subjective, but it is also a vague term. So is "good" for that matter. When evaluating a video game (or anything else), going beyond these vague terms and evaluating on specifics instead is far more useful. I try to separate success vs. failure and my personal taste. One of the first things I consider is what is this game (or, again, anything else) trying to accomplish? And is it successful? By thinking about it this way, I can at least attempt some distance from my personal taste and evaluate it on criteria that, if not objective, are at least trying to imitate a standard of objectivity. One obvious aspect here is bugs. If a game is so riddled with bugs as to render it unplayable, then this is a clear point of failure. But even a bug-ridden, barely functional game might still be fun for some people because the bugs can be entertaining. If a game clears this hurdle and is at least functional, then the more interesting aspects of success vs. failure come into play. Is the game trying to tell a compelling story? If so, then it makes sense to consider whether it succeeds (and this evaluation will be a lot less objective than the bug evaluation). Is it going for intense action and little else? If so, then it is likely to succeed for fail based on its combat and/or platforming mechanics, and it makes little sense to evaluate it based on a story that, if it exists at all, isn't the point of the game. Once I make an admittedly imperfect and subjective attempt at evaluating a game's success or failure based on what I think it is trying to be, then I consider my personal taste. If I think it is successful in its goals but its goals are not to my taste, then I'm not going to play it because it is a "bad" game for me, but I would never even think to claim that it is "bad" in some overarching sense. Elden Ring is a "bad" game for me because I don't like complex action combat as a game mechanic. I am well aware that this is my personal taste and that there are a lot of people who enjoy this mechanic. However, I can still see game play videos and reviews, and it is clear to me that the game is exceptionally well crafted and is successful at what it is trying to accomplish. Even though I am not going to play it, I am glad it is out there, as it sets a high quality standard that hopefully others will emulate. So going back to the vague terms, I can make a judgment is that it is likely a good game, and that it is not for me. Finally, even a game that fails significantly in some (or even most) ways can still be fun for some people. Ultima II is often considered the ugly stepchild of the earlier games in the Ultima series. It is a kitchen sink blend of whatever happened to be in Richard Garriott's head at the time, it has a few bugs that can be extremely annoying or even game breaking, it has balance issues, elements of it make no sense, and it is an interminable grind. It is also one of the most imaginative games in the early days of CRPGs. In some ways, it is hard for me to even evaluate it on success vs. failure because it is hard to tell what it is even trying to be. In hindsight, it is clear that it is an experiment - an attempt to break new ground that goes off the rails at times. Even in its jankiness, I had a lot of fun with it back in the day, and I still enjoy it. The absurd and perplexing nature of elements of this game somehow make it work even when it seems like it shouldn't. I think this game needed to try some things and fail in order for the CRPG genre to move forward. Ultima III demonstrates that Garriott learned from Ultima II, as it is more concise and grounded in its scope, and the criteria for evaluating the success or failure of Ultima III are not difficult to determine. How does one even distill the glorious mess that is Ultima II down to the vagueness of "good" and "bad?" The funny thing about this situation is that, while I think Ultima III is, by far, the more successful and better designed game of the two, I enjoy Ultima II more because I find its weirdness and even its failures appealing.
@@ComissarYarrick It is true that there is nothing desirable about these examples, except that the most spectacular cases might be funny for all the wrong reasons. Still, I would prefer to use the term "failure" for this situation, as the game is either non-functional (an obvious failure) or there is a successful version of the game against which the failed port can be compared. A strong argument can be made that these situations are, objectively, failures, and that ample evidence to judge them as failures can be compiled and presented. Failures are usually considered bad, of course, but "failure" is a more precise word.
@@ComissarYarrick the first case is understandable, but the second case isn't objective because it involves comparing. You're setting up a frame of reference which in this case doesn't make it 'objectively bad', it makes it 'objectively worse' than the thing you're comparing it to.
Some people really can not handle the idea that their feelings and opinions aren't "right", and other people liking what they don't like feels like it's challenging them.
Yeah i dont get the dislike for Outer Worlds, i enjoyed it and as you said you can clearly see the fallout DNA. People place insane expectations on shit without any real reasoning
I imagine that when people say 'a game is bad' they do not mean that 'nobody would like this game' but rather that, by some general criteria for good games, it would not be considered 'good'. Of course, these criteria are hard to agree on and there is subjectivity involved, but through discussion and sharing we as a society reach some consensus. There is a reason some games are considered masterpieces and others are forgotten - there seems to be some lopsided distribution to the 'subjectivity'. If everything was entirely subjective and no guiding factors existed, no game would be praised above another. To take an example from art - there is a reason artists learn perspective, anatomy, color theory, shape design etc, so that even when they break the rules they do so knowingly. Give an experienced artist your painting and he will be able to critique it, giving you valuable feedback on the aspects of it you need to improve in your pursuit of mastery. If artists threw their hands up and said that art is subjective and they can't tell you what you've done wrong then you'd be seeing a lot of crooked paintings around. This same logic can be applied to games - if there are no principles to guide designers, how can decisions be made? How can they give feedback to each other or pass on their craft? This, of course, does not remove the subjectivity from game design. When all else is considered, the very drive to create comes from our subjective experience, but we must not be afraid to critique.
Over the years I've changed my terminology to reflect this objective/subjective issue. If there is an artistic endeavor, be it a game, movie, show, song, etc.., that I do no enjoy I simply say "it's not for me." I don't feel a need to make a judgment on it, only to state that it's not something to which I want to devote time. There are wildly popular games with millions in sales, high review scores, and such that I simply do not enjoy. Does the fact that I have no interest make them "bad"? No. It just means they are not for me. I'm not the arbiter of quality, I'm just a consumer. It's not my business to dictate to others what their opinion should be, or to what they should devote their time. Let people make up their own minds.
I think I learned about this kind of problem most from being forced to think about games I really liked or disliked. Back when Dragon Age - Origins came out it was really well liked by pretty much all reviewers and players as far as I could see, but I personally didn't get along with it at all. And the funny thing is, that I continued playing it almost until the end, because I really didn't understand that gulf back then. It didn't help that I probably still kind of liked certain aspects of it. Just enough to keep me going as I became more frustrated and underwhelmed as it went on. It was really helpful for me, because it helped me realize that my own feelings/opinions sometimes simply don't exist out there. Well, of course similar attitudes surely exist, but they might not have been expressed yet, or at the very least these opinions will be hard to find.
i'm not sure that logic allows for discussing averages easily. when people say everyone hated it, i would think they mean the majority that played and reviewed it hated it. so that's where that comes from. and it's a useful metric in many cases, as the companies argue in the same way, e.g. "everyone loves it" or ign 10/10.
Hmm, I don't know. While I agree with your perspective on how to approach a game, I feel like if no game can be objectively bad, then no game can be objectively good either. If people who feel a game is bad and call it such should stop because no game is truly bad, then would it be right for people to be allowed to act as though a game is objectively good as well? After all, no game has 100% positive ratings either. I am not intending to come off as too analytical. I think my point is that I find people who cannot see any fault with their favorite game and who will defend even the slightest critique of it as tiresome and annoying and someone who will declare a game to be bad simply because they didn't like it or who were unwilling to give it a chance. Either way, you are absolutely right that everyone should approach games from their own perspective rather than the perception that our opinions are somehow objective on any given title. You do not need to act as if a game is objectively good or bad whilst still helping others decide whether or not they will like a game.
Every time art is discussed, I feel like subjectivity is implied. When I say a game is "bad" I see it as just being shorthand of "I tried it and didn't particularly like it, but your opinion might be different and that's valid too". Of course, I don't go out of my way to recommend games I find bad and might even recommend against playing it, stating why I don't think someone should try that game, but I don't think very many people would ever think of their opinion as an absolute, even when it sort of sounds like they're presenting it that way. It's just how we discuss art, I suppose.
You'd be surprised, really. So many, SO many critics out there have a different, and often less nuanced perspective on video games. It's unfortunate but that's just how it is.
This has been the second time I've heard you talk about Mort, he's one of the first people I watch for reviews. I'm glad to hear you promoting him. Mort is awesome, I found him about a year ago.
Speaking of good bad movies, I've watched Ninja: The Final Duel three times recently (with different people) and it's only managed to grow on me every time.
I saw a clip of a streamer giving their opinion of a game. It was a positive response. The top comment was something along the lines of "nah man, this opinion is a miss. This game is bad". That has lived rent free in my head since. Not just one dude saying it, but it was the top upvoted comment. Lots of internet discourse of games can be so exhausting, and this is a big reason.
Yeah if you enter in a discourse with a dull person that tries to just negate your opinion because theirs is the "true" one the only way to not waste time and strength is just stop communicating with them. No point in talking to a wall
I like your point on Mortismal gaming. 99% of the "reviews" by youtubers are done on release day, with less than an hour played. It's like reviewing a movie without having seen it. So the only arguments they can have is the game looks nice and runs well. Or like you said, their review starts by "here's why i'm right and you're wrong". Some youtubers, however, take their time and have a proper constructed criticism. By the way, it's thanks to him that i bought Tyranny, and i'm currently playing it.
Interesting topic, funny enough originally I thought Arcanum was terrible because I watched my brother get killed by zombies easily and I had no idea it was because he didn't spec into fighting type skills, some point afterwards he convinced me to give it a try and I changed my mind and thought it was a great game.
I think this mentality can start to lean into toxic positivity where criticisms can be deflected and the game developer themselves can become narcissists.
Agreed, which is why the opposite is true too, that there is no such thing as an objectively good game. Something you like might be something someone else hates.
The idea that developers "need" harsh criticism to avoid narcissism overlooks the natural regulatory mechanisms of the video game market. Games that don't meet the majority of a target demographic's expectations naturally fall short in the market which is already a direct feedback loop for developers. Now, CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, distinct from cruelty, is essential for growth and improvement. When people really think out their feedback and say it in a consumer perspective format ("as a player, I wish the game was longer" vs. "thig game is too fucking short and the developers are lazy"), it can provide specific insights that can help refine games, whereas cruelty just demoralizes and is almost always misdirected anyway This industry thrives on a balance of positive reinforcement and constructive feedback, not on negativity. Anyone who has worked a single day at a dysfunctional studio knows that negativity absolutely DESTROYS a game dev process. So yeah... Tl;Dr - the idea that developers need to be "put in their place" in any way misunderstands the collaborative nature of game development and the role of market dynamics in shaping game success.
@@tomklovert4353 You don't live in reality if you think there's some kind of alternative to people being harsh. You parse out the actual criticism and add it to the pile. Emotion and perceived harshness comes from a place of wanting it to be better, because people care. Apathy is much, much worse. The market means little. Capitalism and consumption today is FAR from merit based.
@@Hrogthar Acknowledging the value of criticism doesn't mean rejecting that all forms of harsh feedback don't exist. Rather, it's about promoting that feedback that is constructive and actionable over that which is demeaning. The emotional intensity behind criticism can indeed stem from a desire for improvement, but it's worthwhile to channel this passion in ways that foster growth rather than discourage creativity. While apathy is undesirable, respect and constructive engagement are not synonymous with indifference. Also, while the market may not be perfectly merit-based, it remains a significant indicator of a game's reception and success. The challenge lies in navigating these market dynamics to understand and meet player expectations, which is a nuanced process beyond mere capitalism and consumption. My ideal world would have consumers strike a balance where developers are motivated by meaningful feedback and where the industry as a whole benefits from a culture of constructive criticism. Because ultimately, at the end of the day, all of the "fuck you lazy dev" nonsense gets ignored, and if THAT'S the shape of the majority of the voices clambering for merit, the market becomes the ONLY feedback that is worth listening to (or at least, the only feedback we can stomach lol)... And nobody wants games to turn into that.
no, that is actually endorsing and perpetuating evil (i'm not religious, evil is a word to symbolize intentionally bad) good and bad are morality terms associated with truth and right, falsity and wrong the degradation of language and culture and society as civilization collapses has produced a situation of inverted meaning being applied and the perpetuation of evil evil, again, is a word symbolizes 'bad' which is large in scope of definition, but includes such things as valuing the unhealthy destructive ways of being/living exploitation, narcissism
yes, narcissism, which Tim doesn't understand at all the 'crux' of narcissism is that it is unhealthy 'self' motivations, with complete unawareness of the self (he stares at himself but all he sees is the surface, not who he truly is) another manifestation evil is that pervasive ignorance that is born of apathy, neglect, hedonistic indulgences that num and dum the brain into a passive submissive consumptive PET in a cage being played with by masters that rule their lives (corporate slavery through world socialist economic/trade groups and organizations that uphold that[UN, NATO, WHO, world banks, etc.) those are the evil things make better choices, stop buying games that suck your soul instead of contribute to it which at this point may be nothing, you may have played too many games and wasted so much time and space in your life that the only path for redemption is a complete reversal of lifestyle, going out to live in the woods and see if you can hack it
Reviews are written by people, and sometimes people choose the wrong rating (a review criticizes the game, but the icon says "recommend" or vice versa) or write a sarcastic review with the "recommend" mark. For these reasons, there are no games with 100% negative reviews (until there is a person who does not mind spending $100 to release the game for this purpose).
Often for me, I attribute "bad" more often to outside circumstances or because they are made in an environment that has made headlines in the news. Such as "crunch". But I also attribute it to companies like Blizzard because of the stuff I hear about the company, so it's not even really about the games themselves, because they can be well made, brilliantly designed games even. But I cannot support certain behaviors inside of the company.
People are baffled when I tell them Starfield was my game of the year over Baldur's Gate 3. I just like space Sci Fi settings more, as well as emergent sandbox gameplay over boxed in theme park design. Different tastes. It's really that simple. I feel like gamers are far too harsh on many games that come out in modern times.
try out Mass Effect if you like scifi settings. or maybe you have tried it already? if you haven't I recommend playing it from the first entry even though it's a bit outdated maybe.. with the Legendary edition it's not that dated though.
I definitely would agree with approaching it nuanced, but that's also where i had an issue with a take from you in the video about good games too. In it, you talk about how if you look at bugs as being what makes bad games and the rest then has to be good, so there would be no good games because all games have bugs. I think that approach is flawed because it's too absolutist, there are absolutely games that are more buggy than others. And there are games that are just much better on a technical level than others, prime example factorio. Factorio is without any doubt much better on a technical level than something like Kerbal Space Program. I like both games, and have thousands of hours in both, but KSP is a lot more buggy, it performs worse, and overall it's just much worse on a technical level. It does other things well, so i wouldn't call it a bad game overall. And then as you said, looking at different aspects and judging those is what makes a lot more sense in my opinion as well. You can look at things like, how well designed are the quests, is the tutorial effective at teaching you how to play the game, what's the mod support like, ... think there are still some objective was games can be good or bad. I just also think it takes some nuance as well, and you have to look at the different aspects in a game and those are much easier to judge individually. Basically, i think it's very well possible to talk about aspects of a game that are good or bad in an at least somewhat objective way. Where i see the problem is that it's too reductionist to then say "the game overall is good or bad", because how can you really compare a game being really good in some regards, and awful in others and reduce that to a single binary good or bad? I don't think that makes much sense to even do, and it's where things get really subjective because then you have to consider what you personally put more emphasis on. Do you prefer a game to be stable, or having really engaging gameplay? Can you enjoy playing a buggy game because it has a great vision, and you don't mind having to tinker to make things work? Or does that take you out of it and you prefer a smooth experience and a very polished game, even if that maybe doesn't have as many features or isn't exactly the setting you'd want? That's where getting to an objective answer becomes really hard or next to impossible, unless a game is phenominally bad in basically every way - or good. One of the few games that i would feel comfortable calling overall good is, again, factorio because there really is not much i can criticise and it does basically everything well. Even the act of making mods for this game which most players never will do is a good experience and the devs are putting a lot of thought and effort into that, adding new modding features based on community requests etc. But factorio is special in that way, and most games i wouldn't want to call either good or bad because most games are frankly mixed, there's things i think they do well and others i think they do badly. A lot of games i play, even ones i play a lot, have some serious flaws but i still enjoy playing them. So when talking about how good those are, i think the only thing that really makes sense is to talk about those individual things they do well or poorly, but i think a single "the game overall is good or bad" rarely makes sense.
3:57 if only
see, i usually don’t like RPG romances either, but mostly b/c they ruin the element of escapism. i’m in college rn, and “everybody in the world is a horny bisexual person” basically describes my day-to-day. sometimes i want a break from that.
Tangent on romance: Has there ever been a game where there's only one or two people interested in you but you can try with everyone? And there's actual unrequited love? Most NPCs will never be with you? I know of none; it's always hordes of "horny bisexuals".
The most jarring example being maybe Dragon's Dogma 1. Where even the married 60 y.o. Blacksmith is a love interest for your spunky adventurer. And you don't even get to choose who you will romance, the game picks for you!
Interesting point. In a lot of cases where a romance isn't available, but was considered as a possibility - such as Cyberpunk's Judy for male characters - people will get upset and state some very abysmal criticism. Similarly, Serana from Skyrim is modded into a romance interest even though not being one is a part of her character.
I think those players play games to have a world where everyone and everything serves them. It's understandable to a certain point, in my opinion.
I would definitely want to see a game where the player can be a treated with more one-sided attraction.
i just play visual novels for that, failing a route hits HARD, and romance in RPG is very boring, so i stick with Visual Novels.
2:00 dark souls 2 moment
I'm absolutely obsessed with your channel now. I'm a Gamer of a Certain Age, and often find myself yelling "Exactly! This man gets it!" at my monitor while watching your videos. This video is one I yelled at a lot.
I didn't notice the sliding feet in Diablo until you mentioned it, thank you Tim. 😄
And funnily enough, the devs of Diablo 1 had to sweat hard to even make it look as good as it did, it used to be way worse prior to release.
I love the sliding feet. It felt like they were sliding in a play.
I really liked Outer Worlds, I wish my friends would have given it more of a chance. My only complaint with the game is there’s no third person mode. With all the great outfit designs and cool locations, I want to see what my character looks like outside the inventory menu.
I only say a game is objectively bad when it's objectively broken. Most major titles aren't broken broken but baddly optmised but then some do fall into that bad faith production.
... It is kind of strange that this point was overlooked in a video titled "bad games"
I think there are games out there that can almost universally be considered bad. Gollum comes to mind from recent times.
True, but “almost” is going a lot of heavy lifting in your sentence
People like diffrent things. What matters to me is what i like. The only one that needs to be entertained when i play is me.
There’s very little out there that would not be liked / subscribed to by at least someone. Including (I’d say objectively) very bad products or bad ideas. Such as Ed Wood’s films (haven’t seen them, no opinion on them, but know they’re widely considered bad) or the idea that the Earth is flat. While I agree with your general sentiment, I believe there are things out there that can be called bad - without necessarily adding ‘in my opinion’
What about the guys who like things that are "so bad that its good"? These guys rather play these bad games than good games :D
@vembdev right. I love watching "bad" films because they are often accidentally the best comedies. Same for games like Gollum. Falling through the floor and into oblivion at important moments is funny.
I just saw an interview with Adam Jones, guitarist of Tool. Turns out he and I share a life rule. When watching a movie, or playing a game, do it with the mindset you had when you were 12 years old!
Enjoy the awesome parts, forgive the poor parts, stay as long as you are enjoying yourself. It is an awesome way to enjoy your art, and once you lose the external pressure of "bad taste" etc, your life will be way easier and more enjoyable.
Half the art is in the perception anyway, some things just doesn't fit you and thats great, go enjoy something that makes you feel twelve again!
There is some value to everything, it just takes a certain perspective to see it
Mortim always seems to want to enjoy games, and seeks to understand them on their own terms. He's also very open about his biases. That's what i love about his reviews personally.
The video essay crowd really seems to favor reacting like a raw nerve. All too often their videos are little more than "I liked this" or "I didn't like this" followed by an hour long summary with about 5 minutes of opinion commentary.
Incentivizing watch time creates some weird content.
@@GypsumGenerationtrue that
Reasonable people are rare in the world... Thank you for being one.
Tim found some one who likes Atari’s ET. 😅
whan someone say "BAD GAMES" todd howard kept popping up in my head
Mortismal is a gem.
I always thought fallout new vegas was a bad game when it was launched when I was a kid because I thought it was a straight forward scripted game but when I found out there was a shortcut to Vegas than the long traditional way to go to Vegas. My perspective of the game has changed. It was the best fallout ever made specially you can see a lot of passions that the developers put into the game
I love Mortismal Gaming for exactly that - his reviews have really helped me start finding new games that I'll actually like.
One of my favorite series is called legacy of kain. Oh it has a lot of issues but it's story and voice acting was SSS tier making up for everything else
Great games! Hope they get remasters or remakes
If a product that isn't finished isn't objectively bad, then call me a fucking narcissist.
A bad game depends on the perspective.
For a player: Not enjoyable.
For a reviewer: Not hypeable.
For a publisher: Not profitable.
For a developer: Not fixable.
I like this comment. I’ve always said that a bad game is subjective, but you pointed out how it’s subjective. Specifically, a game is bad for you if you didn’t get what you wanted from it.
For a developer, I’d say a game is bad if it doesn’t turn out how they wanted it to be. Because I’ve had games that shipped close to what I wanted but that didn’t sell or review well. They are still good games to me.
tims take on narcissism is hilarious and lovable
Hi tim! I have always wanted to make games but always found myself getting in my own way due to just thinking I cant do it or thinking I need the most advanced knowledge of X programming language to get it done. Thanks to your videos and insistence of the idea that you can 'just make any game' by any means necessary helped me get over that. I've finally found a comfortable niche for myself in godot and in the past few days have made a playable level with a tileset I made following tutorials, a basic melee weapon, and im now implementing my first enemy NPC with attacks and pathfinding AI. I understand this isnt even a demo or anything to show anyone yet, but still. This is further than I have ever been and I feel more and more comfortable carving this new groove everyday. I just wanted to say thank you for sharing your experiences and perspectives and overall positivity!
That's awesome! I hope you succeed, everyone looks a good success story.
The people who choose vanilla over chocolate are just people who found a way to eat too much chocolate and can't take it anymore.
About the Outer worlds, i played it at launch and i had fun with it, to be honest i like a lot the humor of the game. There are things that i dislike for sure but that happens with every game i play, there is no perfect game.
It's just so mediocre.
It felt so uninspired.
I've complained about it here, having purchased it excitedly on release and dropped it three quarters of the way through. I've never called it bad. it's certainly a polished, professional-looking game.
It's just that none of the characters or settings managed to capture my interest enough to make me care about their plight or how their stories resolve.
Cain touches onto something that I think people have forgotten about: finding a critic whose tastes align with yours. It's not about having the right opinion or joining some mob mentality, but finding stuff you will like while avoiding the stuff you won't. One of my favorite reviewers for movies helped me to see tons of movies I absolutely loved while also avoiding movies that when I did see them on TV or as a rental, I genuinely loathed. A good critic who aligns with your taste will help you save time and money.
@@lrinfi I didn't say to only listen to critics. Reviews are a tool. Yes, one should be willing to go out and be adventurous from time to time. But the older I get, the more valuable my time becomes. I'm not a teenager or young adult anymore, and I no longer want to possibly waste my time on a game, show, or book that I may very well end up hating. This goes for recommendations from friends, family, and co-workers.
That being said, I stopped listening to the elitist crowing about how Souls game are sooooo hard and played Bloodborne, and not only did I beat it and have fun, I also found it not all that hard. I still look for new things on my own, and sometimes it leads to a great time, while at other times I'm throwing a paperback novel across my room. Them's the breaks.
Mort is kinda the goat. Based king.
Use it as fuel!
I've been writing down every little thing that I dislike in modern games so that I can attempt to make a game that does it better.
Make the things you want to see!
A good game is a game that I enjoy playing.
There are slots with artificial losses and no randomness. those are bad games. Not just bad, but evil.
exactly, Tim's calling me a narcissist for hating on games designed to steal from users :'(
I’d love to watch Tim play Gollum or that motorcycle biker 360 game.
And I always make it a point to play bad games, bad is my favorite genre. Showgirls, Madam Web, that’s my kind of movie. 😂
Tim, I could listen to you talk forever
I find it important to remember; what we are looking for in media is often something we feel we are missing in real life. If the game doesn’t have that thing, we may dismiss the game out of hand. Hence “game bad” becomes “game not what I wanted”.
"Just try not to think of yourself as the last word"
Wise words from a wise man.
I like it when you come across a game which has some clear shortcomings but you still love it because it's so unique that nit-picking about some aspect feels like an insult of sorts.
Tim played Starfield and liked it so now he will defend it! Joking! Tim, I agree 100%! Congrats
This is definitely a place where so much of the nuance in discussing games/books/shows/etc. gets missed. Calling things 'bad' might on the surface initially feel more authoritative and like the critique is coming from a place of expertise, but in fact the vagueness of it comes across as the opposite, especially to anyone in the audience who had a different experience, or didn't have as big an issue with the things listed in the critique.
Learning to phrase critiques in terms of what you did and didn't enjoy or what specific features really ruined your experience isn't about pulling punches on a critique, it's more just a matter of learning to phrase a critique in a way that makes it more specific and accurate to the information you have available.
Appreciated this discussion, really brings to light some of the nuances in discourse on creative work that are not always well understood.
This is how I feel about people who say pineapple "doesn't belong" on pizza.
You're clearly not Italian
@@CMSonYT You are clearly egotistical.
The opposite also happens, I'm sure everyone has a few very well regarded games they don't click with for whatever reason (setting, gameplay or narrative choices, etc) but it's almost a sacrilege to even say that game isn't for you.
Saying the game is not for you isn't the problem, saying the game is bad is.
You can like bad games, and you can dislike good games.
The problem lies when your definition of "good" or "bad" relies exclusively on your experience playing the game.
And you ignore more objective things like:
- how buggy it is.
- how much content there is for that specific type of game (and its price).
- does it push for aggressive microtransaction that intrude on your playing experience
- how stable is the connection and how good are the servers (for multiplayer games)
- what is the experience of other people in those areas - I've had a lot of people say that they didn't have issues with the bugs of Cyberpunk 2077 at launch, on PC.
From that they concluded that the issues were exclusively on consoles.
But it's a fake conclusion, because many people (myself included) experienced tons of bugs with it.
Then there's the issues of what kind of bugs are a problem: many claimed that they experienced no bugs, but when questioned further, they clarifying that they experienced no "game-breaking" bugs - in the sense that they could finish the game and all the quests.
This means that they dismiss bugs that cause crashes, or that cause objects to fall through the "floor", and all sorts of other bugs that can still diminish your playing experience.
So feel free to dislike, say, Baldur's Gate 3. But don't say that it's a bad game - it's just not for you.
I have my own personal issues with it, but I also wouldn't say it's a bad game, because it's not fair.
Oh, I've got lots of those.
But if I just mention somewhere that i didn't like Dark Souls or hated numerical 3D Fallouts and TeS, or R6S and Finals... Or that I don't see any difference between any popular online shooter and the next one even if they belong to different genres...
People go crazy and try to make me believe that I just don't know anything.
i don't think technical issues make a game bad. Just like bad performance doesn't make the song bad. It's poor execution, not idea.
Also the content thing, IMHO is a bit subjective. I'd much rather pay 30$ for a game that has 10-20 hours of solid story and interesting gameplay ( like Syberia 1 or 2, life is strange, mirror's edge or anything like that ) than 60$ for an ultimate 190+h long + dlc + multiplayer + sequel deep story openworld rpg experience (like most modern games are).
I didn't have any major bugs on release in 2077. I once fell through the floor when exiting car, had one companion NPC passing through staircase (fixed by luring him out and going in again) and once or twice i caught T pose on bike. That's like 20 hours of game and never happened again.
Actually, subsequent patches that were supposed to fix bugs introduced said bugs in my game. The repulsive window, bug with two cops and neighbor quest, Takemura not calling etc. Patch note says "fixed", my game says otherwise :) that was funny tho. And the game breaking thing for me was the game itself. It’s gunplay, useless skills (until 1.6 or 2.0), completely random clothing and guns etc. Interesting story, setting, some gameplay mechanics. But totally not my kind of game because of how Borderlands-like everything else is.
@@zhulikkulik
"Also the content thing, IMHO is a bit subjective." - well, yes, the content should be engaging, I should have written that, my bad.
But you ignore the "for that type of game" part. Of course that a game like "Life is strange" or "Mirror's Edge" is going to be different from an open-world game with a lot of stuff to do.
"like most modern games are" - are you sure about that?
There are literally thousands of games released each year - a short search tells me that "Over 14,000 games were released on Steam in 2023".
Obviously there will be plenty of console exclusives on top of that.
You shouldn't limit yourself to AAA or AA games, there is a wealth of games outside of that.
I agree that one type of issue alone (like bugs), doesn't make the game bad, but put enough different types of issues together and they do make it bad, if they heavily overwhelm the good parts.
For "technical issues" specifically - it doesn't matter how much fun the game is, if you can't play it!
If it constantly and frequently crashes, if it's unplayable due to extreme stuttering, if it's online-only but you are frequently disconnected: all of those are MASSIVE problems that need to be fixed ASAP.
My point was that the problem is when people ignore that issue: "Well, it's not an issue for me." - okay, but you are not the only person playing the game.
If enough paying customers think like that, this prevents the company from improving their game: why make better games if the suckers will buy our broken messes?
The best recent example is with Bethesda and Starfield.
@owingUp84 Saying "the game isn't for me" isn't even worth saying, why waste the bandwidth or the air? As if anyone cares.
Imagine actual discussions like this.. Comment #1: "I liked the game" Comment #2 "The game isn't for me". With N and M likes respectively. Now that's interesting and informative!
Thank god for crowdfunding
Well said. I am glad that this terminology has been addressed for what it is. It reminds me of music genre wars of the 80s and 90s.
Totally agree. Is too common on the internet to find people trying to pass their opinion as objective truth. It's silly, it shows immaturity. Or plain narcissism, which makes sense since narcissist are over represented on the internet, for obvious reasons.
Games are such multi-faceted works that even a game you consider "bad" can be a source of inspiration. I've played so many janky old DOS games that are nowhere near fun but still full of creative and brilliant design ideas that I'd love to see polished up.
I've always found "bad games" that are ambitious, and try new things, but maybe don't do them well... infinitely more interesting than the "good games" that don't really aspire to anything new or different, but execute everything they do well.
@@Netherfly I wish the industry more reliably put money into those types of games. In the 80s and 90s Sega put out so many ambitious and interesting games. Whether the actual experience of playing them was fun, there was always a mountain of interesting ideas. They weren't afraid to publish total jank, and it led to so many cool games.
@@smellvadordali9806 sega got quite the glow-up recently, they're finally trying that strategy of spending a lot of money over a series of smaller projects. No thanks to pachinko regulations in Japan ramping up, but hey. I'm just happy that they're one of the companies trying things out again.
If you like DOS games, have you checked out eXoDOS 6 yet? 7,633 DOS games. So ,amy games you could start a YT channel covering just what's in the pack. Oh and they're all preconfigured and you can set global settings, and do all sorts of cool stuff. Most of them work right out of the box, though I've found a few duds. They also have Fallout 1 on there, just FYI.
@@Netherfly Case in Point: Dragon's Dogma 2 is one of the latter games. It played it's cards as an RPG so safe, there is exactly one armor and weapon option for the type you have chosen at any progression point in the story. No side grades. No interesting features. And everything that made the first game great was neutered, such as pawns learning and changing their behavior by themselves.
Ironically the first Dragon's Dogma was the former, a janky and weird game, that nailed a few things and tried out new stuff. It revolutionized, just for the franchise to make 3 steps backwards on the follow-up titles. Maddening.
I agree with you, but I do find the discussions on certain video games being good or bad interesting. However something can be objectively bad, like technical problems. Another thing to point out that I feel a lot of gamers forget is that criticism doesn't equal hate. You can love something and still be critical about it. I have yet to play a perfect game, and I doubt it exist or ever will. That's part of the charm I guess. After all video games are made by imperfect creatures.
I completely agree with you. And sometimes something objectively bad like a crash bug doesn't lead to a bad game. I have save scummed my way through games that frequently crashed, because I loved the games.
I think it's weird when people claim a game loved by many is objectively bad, but I think its also weird how people claim to like broken garbage. And that exists. I play a lot of random stuff and some people and companies just don't give a damn.
When people call Gollum the worst game of the year, its kinda... well it is not. There are 10.000 new games on Steam each year. A lot of totally broken crap.
I own over a thousand games on Steam and hundreds more on GOG and Epic. I don’t think I’ve ever given a negative review. If I do consider a game “bad”, it’s definitely from a subjective point of view.
The only exceptions would be games that are horribly buggy and abandoned. Or games that have predatory monetization schemes.
The comment about not really talking about games you don't like is interesting because like... there are definitely games or stories or whatever I don't like and I just don't talk about them, but if there is one type of game or story which will keep me talking (and, honestly, probably excessively ragging on) about it long after I've dropped it is games which are (for me) _almost_ great. Games which have something amazing which I find very compelling and utterly butcher the delivery so I feel (admittedly unfairly) robbed of something that could have been absolutely wonderful.
I think this is true for other people in substantial part too-people don't hate on games they just dislike but on games that they _want_ to like but don't.
I refer to games as “bad” because I believe it to be predatory. Utilizing people's psychological vulnerabilities as leverage to obtain payment. When BG3 performed so well, it gave me great joy because it demonstrated that you could succeed without being a predator.
but you can succeed as a predator in bg3
While I agree that ought to be considered objectively bad for the industry & society to have games designed around predatory monetization and gambling, the gameplay itself still needs to be designed to be at least enjoyable for as wide an audience as possible for those predatory practices to be succesful and worthwhile to implement.
The gameplay design is still an artform and thus subjective. The monetization strategies that manipulate and exploit the customer in an objectively harmful way; we can agree that is objectively BAD, even if the game itself might be very enjoyable for some.
It’s not that deep, it’s called sales, and salesmen have been doing it since forever.
@@lt_hammerfist5532B.F Skinner has not been around since forever.
Any game i find boring is bad.
Anything that's unplayable is bad game, mainly technical issues and stay that way.
When someone calls aaa games bad it means its boring and not worth the time.
Something like current auicide squad is a example of this, its not worst but bad due to being boring.
Can someone like it probably, it has good movement.
Interesting. I often categorize stuff in my mind as objectively good or bad, and despite it being my own take and not based off the thoughts of reviews or units sold, it often does not coincide with what I like and dislike.
This should go without saying for adults. Alas...
When a game is unpleasant for you, that's a great thing to explore to become a better designer. "Why was that experience so bad for me?"
Sometimes the game just isn't for you. I'm not the target audience for Barbie and Her Sisters: Puppy Rescue, but I'm sure someone loved that game and wants more of it.
When listening to this I was thinking about how over time the same people can who made a game I loved would make another game I hated, and then yet another I loved again. There are a lot of people who forget that games are made by people, and people can change their mind about different aspects of development over time.And a second thing I thought, it's a worse feeling to play a game all your friends love and you dislike, than to check out a game on your own that you ended up disliking.
Another thing to bear in mind is that I, like most game developers, have never made two games with exactly the same team members. Different people bring different skills and ideas to the production.
@@CainOnGamesYeah, actually, I was speifically thinking about the Metroid series, which traded hands probably half a dozen times at least.
I came to think of games in terms of whether is was worth my time or not, and I refer to this judgement when recommending something to friends.
Every game has its flaws, but i have never said a game was bad. I'm currently playing jrpgs, but I loved every game I played in my life, even if some of them weren't my cup of tea. I simply love gaming.
In regard to thinking there is no objective metric in which to define a bad game.
Easiest one to point to is functionality.
Does this game mechanic work? Is the hitbox right size,does the game run,how much does it crash.
As for story writing. Does this story make sense. Are there any plot holes and contrivances?
Is the story finished?
Do the characters traits match their actions and goals?
These things regardless of how people feel about something can be objectively measured
Bad games should mean, it has horrible things in it, like ultra realistic violence, incentives to make the player make evil choices like rewards for bad behavior.. like the whole goal for the player is to be a bad person.
Mortismal Gaming is THE gaming review channel and, as you say, sometimes I don't agree with him because he may like or dislike different things from what I usually look for in a game, yet I always find him as much objective as he can. He always tries to give an impartial opinion and doesn't let his own ego prevail.
By the way congratulation on almost reaching 100k subs, gonna hang the youtube button behind your back, I hope, will be another relic for you to save :D
Mortismal Gaming is definitely aligned with my tastes in gaming/RPGs.
But I do feel he was a bit too lenient on Rogue Trader which basically was released in a broken state, and progressively gets worse towards the end acts.
Nah, that's Sseth/Mandalore
@@akar2755 Agreed, especially considering how much he loved Wrath of the Righteous. It seems like Mort would have been a part of the group that really held Owlcat accountable, for what it's worth.
@@akar2755Mort really (really really) loves Wrath of the Righteous, and compares a lot to the game, and doesn't really see the flaws of it (like almost at all, which he doesn't really hide, since he always says that "some people might dislike X in the WoTR, but I personally have no problem/like it/love it"). Even outside of bugs and whatnot, every single design decision in WoTR is beloved by Mort. That's why he is very lenient about Owlcat recent masterpiece of the cRPG. Now, I don't think it was broken-broken, but it was as expected, from previous Owlcat games, on the same level as WoTR, gladly not on Kingmaker (now that game was really broken). I adore WoTR as well, it is an outstanding cRPG, but without essaying further, lol, Mort is clearly biased towards WoTR, and by-proxy, towards Rogue Trader, and overall to the Owlcat (outside of even bugs, just to some design choices they make over and over and over again)
Late reply, I agree with you about Mortismal, it is a good review channel. My only "narcissistic" issue with him is that I *know* he didn't play out Planescape: Torment. The review of the game tells me that, and the fact that he talks about it using the same 5 sentences every (rare) time it is mentioned is confirmation.
That to me is a problem simply because, in my opinion, that game is a cornerstone game when it comes to understanding the genre. Another "narcissistic" issue: why did BG3 ship without real-time with pause as an option? That is an essential part of that IPs identity, and the fact that all of that was glossed over and not made a conversation topic also rubbed me the wrong way. I wish Mort called that out instead of fanboying over Larian.
I definitely agree with what you said about the romance in a lot of games. I do think it can be well done if it is written like a real relationship, not as though all party members will go for anything that moves and has a couple good lines.
Just ignoring the writing entirely, I think romances would be better if they tended to be more systemically interesting. Most romances are little more than "give gifts, receive sex," or "select dialog options marked with the heart symbol, receive sex." And as a result are just... boring, and pretty condescending -- like they're less interested in "romance" than they are naked appeals to horny teenagers.
One thing I like about the Fire Emblem games -- again, *ignoring* the writing here -- is how NPC relationships are based on in-game actions. For two characters to have a relationship, romantic or otherwise, they have to frequently work together in battle. And the ensuing romantic relationship is less of a reward in and of itself than it is narrative context for the *systemic* rewards paired units can get (EG stat bonuses, et al).
@@Netherfly This is what I meant, actually. I'm sure that I am missing the line between writing and design here, but I prefer gameplay that reinforces a good story to clever dialogue that doesn't match actions.
The 'weird horny bisexual worlds' make sense to me. Most of these characters in these games are about a WILDLY dangerous lifestyle. We don't really take into account how risky standard 'adventurer' behavior is. But if you are living every day where you could wind up dead due to single mistake, and are surrounded by people who have died in those conditions, then you're going to live a more rash lifestyle by definition.
What always stood out to me as needing improvement in writing was the tonal dissonance as most stories simply ignore this aspect of the characters involved. Like I'm playing this game right now, some kid wants to be an adventurer so local guild just says 'go kill some goblins' and I'm thinking to myself how can this untrained teen single handedly beat a half dozen intelligent, armed, belligerent human-like beings and just act like this is a totally normal thing for children to do.
I love how Divinity Original Sin 2 did it.
not like it was "real", but like it was a fun lighthearted comedic romance book.
not some extremely sad photorealistic drama where one of the characters dies and becomes overweight and... or worse, what's usual in games, extremely simplistic nothing burgers.
@@yurisonovab3892You don't flip a switch and become bisexual/gay/straight just because you're in a dangerous environment or are leading a dangerous lifestyle. I used to leave in a dangerous city for years (where I was mugged once), and everytime I left my house, especially when I studied at night, I had to be on the lookout, avoiding certain places/neighbourhoods/dark corners... that daily feeling of alertness didn't change my sexuality or made me "hornier" just because I knew I could end up seriously hurt or dead after a mugging attempt or something... If anything, it made me less "horny" as I was just exhausted to even think about relationships and sex.
Not to mention that this trend usually paints bisexuals as horny deviants or something...
I'll be honest, it took me a minute to get into The Outer Worlds. I don't know why. But I'm glad I stuck with it because once it "clicked" I fell in love. There are very few games I want to play more than once, but I've played it twice, watched my husband play it, and would play again if I had time. And the thing is, I'm not even playing differently each time! I still make the same decisions, go with the same companions. I just adore it and am so excited for the sequel.
You’re a trip hahaha I love the candor
Every game I don't like is bad because I don't like bad games. And I'm not a narcissist, I'm the BEST narcissist. You're welcome.
If the game isn’t fun it’s a bad game.
A quick comment on the marketing of Outer Worlds (a game I enjoyed) and "lots of games say made by creators of X". The problem wasn't in mentioning Obsidian's prior projects, it was in failing to manage expectations when the "from the creators of Fallout: New Vegas" had so much impact relative to Bethesda's utter disappointment of the New Vegas-loving crowd. Recall the controversy over the "Yes, Yes, No, Sarcastic Yes" dialogue design, the stripping down of choice & consequence, etc. To be completely clear beyond a shadow of a doubt: I am still discovering new pathways that Josh & co accounted for all those years ago despite a dozen playthroughs (this is true of your Arcanum as well!), but after a handful of Outer Worlds playthroughs I feel like I've already seen all there will ever be to see and all too often the experience is *only* A, B, or C decisions. Outer Worlds has plenty of merit in terms of gameplay, systems design, etc. Hell it even exceeded my expectations in its stability and performance, which I believe is much more important than people typically give credit for.
Bottom line: should consumers be more conservative when managing their own expectations? Yes! But game devs can also be more nuanced and self-aware in the way they shape consumer expectation with their marketing. It's much better to overdeliver!
Yeah, I fully agree. I think Tim has a lot of solid takes and is usually very open-minded, but that comment came off as a bit of a cope on his end. The marketing set expectations for Outer Worlds waaay too high which made the game a rather underwhelming experience.
People called Outer Worlds bad but because it was a talking heads game with no exploring or weird side areas(they never looked for them there was alot of those), and then when starfield came out where you literally have to make your own fun didn't understand what to do.
If you read this, I loved The Outer Worlds.
It's just so boring and unispired in comparison to some of his earlier games like Vampire Bloodlines.
I don't even believe you paid any attention when you played the outer worlds. It oozes story and style. I have a growing theory now that a growing number of gamers are losing their ability to appreciate the work that goes into games because they are just consuming games akin to eating because being bored.
I blame the pavlovian design decisions that players need to be rewarded so often that they lose the ability to just enjoy the "stop and smell the roses" experience when playing the game.
@@Tenzarin why would I appreciate getting bored? I've played a lot, and I mean a lot, of games and this one just doesn't show anything I haven't seen better somewhere else. It's truly mediocre. It has no real creative drive.
Ok, you consider it "truly mediocre and no real creative drive", can you give some examples of that in The Outer Worlds?
Edit: I'll take your silence that your opinion is bad because you do not want to explain it in more detail.
Imagine thinking that you won an internet - so asynchronous - discussion with a total stranger with unknown schedule, available free time etc, because he did not respond within some arbitrary time limit you picked without even saying so.
hey, Tim! im playing through The Outer Worlds right now and i love it so much. The world and the characters feel so real and engaging. thank you so much! also, i love your videos.
"Everyone in the world is a horny bisexual person." THANK YOU. That's the issue with the BG3 romance system. The game overall is fantastic, but it just feels so weird and immersion-breaking to have literally every single companion proposition you.
As my dad used to say, "the world would be a very boring place if all liked the same things".
There is subjectively bad *in terms of taste* and subjectively bad compared to *other games & industry standards.*
When people say a game is "bad" they usually refer to the latter.
And a game with good elements can still be "bad" overall, when compared to the standards of the industry.
For example, there are numerous examples with good mechanics, animations, graphics, modes etc that are still considered "bad" because of (i) over-the-top monetization/gambling, (ii) offering a worse experience (less choices or weaker mechanics) than a previous entry, or (iii) being obviously rushed-to-release with many broken or missing parts.
Sometimes bad (non-predatory) games can be fun to play, like David Cage games which I find have the potential to be so comically bad they loop around to being good again. We need more of those!
I wonder if Tim has ever watched Angry Joe? 🤣
In art there are skills that are objectively good or bad and there are some objectively good or bad. For example, if someone is unable to draw a straight line, they they're objectively bad at drawing. But if they make a picture with a message or expression you don't like, or goes into topics you don't think are worth your time, then they're subjectively bad.
I firmly believe all arts - including writing, movies, but also videogames - have aspects that can be either objectively or subjectively bad. The objective ones are just difficult to define, and are things like "the ability to set up a scene", "the ability to build tension", "the ability to communicate information" etc.
To me a bad game if its boring. Or annoying to play.
I found something interesting trying old fallout and kinda comparing to outer worlds or wven new vegas its kinda way more deep and lively while being 2d.
I think the isometric world view gives more life abd character to these games than just fiest or tps view.
I hate it when people describe something as "objectively bad." Not only is "bad" a matter of taste, and therefore subjective, but it is also a vague term. So is "good" for that matter. When evaluating a video game (or anything else), going beyond these vague terms and evaluating on specifics instead is far more useful.
I try to separate success vs. failure and my personal taste. One of the first things I consider is what is this game (or, again, anything else) trying to accomplish? And is it successful? By thinking about it this way, I can at least attempt some distance from my personal taste and evaluate it on criteria that, if not objective, are at least trying to imitate a standard of objectivity. One obvious aspect here is bugs. If a game is so riddled with bugs as to render it unplayable, then this is a clear point of failure. But even a bug-ridden, barely functional game might still be fun for some people because the bugs can be entertaining. If a game clears this hurdle and is at least functional, then the more interesting aspects of success vs. failure come into play. Is the game trying to tell a compelling story? If so, then it makes sense to consider whether it succeeds (and this evaluation will be a lot less objective than the bug evaluation). Is it going for intense action and little else? If so, then it is likely to succeed for fail based on its combat and/or platforming mechanics, and it makes little sense to evaluate it based on a story that, if it exists at all, isn't the point of the game.
Once I make an admittedly imperfect and subjective attempt at evaluating a game's success or failure based on what I think it is trying to be, then I consider my personal taste. If I think it is successful in its goals but its goals are not to my taste, then I'm not going to play it because it is a "bad" game for me, but I would never even think to claim that it is "bad" in some overarching sense. Elden Ring is a "bad" game for me because I don't like complex action combat as a game mechanic. I am well aware that this is my personal taste and that there are a lot of people who enjoy this mechanic. However, I can still see game play videos and reviews, and it is clear to me that the game is exceptionally well crafted and is successful at what it is trying to accomplish. Even though I am not going to play it, I am glad it is out there, as it sets a high quality standard that hopefully others will emulate. So going back to the vague terms, I can make a judgment is that it is likely a good game, and that it is not for me.
Finally, even a game that fails significantly in some (or even most) ways can still be fun for some people. Ultima II is often considered the ugly stepchild of the earlier games in the Ultima series. It is a kitchen sink blend of whatever happened to be in Richard Garriott's head at the time, it has a few bugs that can be extremely annoying or even game breaking, it has balance issues, elements of it make no sense, and it is an interminable grind. It is also one of the most imaginative games in the early days of CRPGs. In some ways, it is hard for me to even evaluate it on success vs. failure because it is hard to tell what it is even trying to be. In hindsight, it is clear that it is an experiment - an attempt to break new ground that goes off the rails at times. Even in its jankiness, I had a lot of fun with it back in the day, and I still enjoy it. The absurd and perplexing nature of elements of this game somehow make it work even when it seems like it shouldn't. I think this game needed to try some things and fail in order for the CRPG genre to move forward. Ultima III demonstrates that Garriott learned from Ultima II, as it is more concise and grounded in its scope, and the criteria for evaluating the success or failure of Ultima III are not difficult to determine. How does one even distill the glorious mess that is Ultima II down to the vagueness of "good" and "bad?" The funny thing about this situation is that, while I think Ultima III is, by far, the more successful and better designed game of the two, I enjoy Ultima II more because I find its weirdness and even its failures appealing.
Some things *are* objectively bad. Like launching game with game-breaking bug, or good game having shitty PC/console port.
@@ComissarYarrick It is true that there is nothing desirable about these examples, except that the most spectacular cases might be funny for all the wrong reasons. Still, I would prefer to use the term "failure" for this situation, as the game is either non-functional (an obvious failure) or there is a successful version of the game against which the failed port can be compared. A strong argument can be made that these situations are, objectively, failures, and that ample evidence to judge them as failures can be compiled and presented. Failures are usually considered bad, of course, but "failure" is a more precise word.
@@ComissarYarrick the first case is understandable, but the second case isn't objective because it involves comparing. You're setting up a frame of reference which in this case doesn't make it 'objectively bad', it makes it 'objectively worse' than the thing you're comparing it to.
Some people really can not handle the idea that their feelings and opinions aren't "right", and other people liking what they don't like feels like it's challenging them.
doesn't stop some games from being bad though?
A game falls into my "bad game: category when there are more features I don't enjoy than do and am not having fun playing the game.
Then technically if you enter genre you don't like.. the game is bad.
@@rlrihards948Of course. But not objectively.
@@NSA.Monitored.Device Exactly. As said in video, the whole "bad game" is subjective.
Yeah i dont get the dislike for Outer Worlds, i enjoyed it and as you said you can clearly see the fallout DNA. People place insane expectations on shit without any real reasoning
I imagine that when people say 'a game is bad' they do not mean that 'nobody would like this game' but rather that, by some general criteria for good games, it would not be considered 'good'. Of course, these criteria are hard to agree on and there is subjectivity involved, but through discussion and sharing we as a society reach some consensus. There is a reason some games are considered masterpieces and others are forgotten - there seems to be some lopsided distribution to the 'subjectivity'. If everything was entirely subjective and no guiding factors existed, no game would be praised above another.
To take an example from art - there is a reason artists learn perspective, anatomy, color theory, shape design etc, so that even when they break the rules they do so knowingly. Give an experienced artist your painting and he will be able to critique it, giving you valuable feedback on the aspects of it you need to improve in your pursuit of mastery. If artists threw their hands up and said that art is subjective and they can't tell you what you've done wrong then you'd be seeing a lot of crooked paintings around.
This same logic can be applied to games - if there are no principles to guide designers, how can decisions be made? How can they give feedback to each other or pass on their craft? This, of course, does not remove the subjectivity from game design. When all else is considered, the very drive to create comes from our subjective experience, but we must not be afraid to critique.
Over the years I've changed my terminology to reflect this objective/subjective issue. If there is an artistic endeavor, be it a game, movie, show, song, etc.., that I do no enjoy I simply say "it's not for me." I don't feel a need to make a judgment on it, only to state that it's not something to which I want to devote time. There are wildly popular games with millions in sales, high review scores, and such that I simply do not enjoy. Does the fact that I have no interest make them "bad"? No. It just means they are not for me. I'm not the arbiter of quality, I'm just a consumer. It's not my business to dictate to others what their opinion should be, or to what they should devote their time. Let people make up their own minds.
Well said, Tim.
I think I learned about this kind of problem most from being forced to think about games I really liked or disliked.
Back when Dragon Age - Origins came out it was really well liked by pretty much all reviewers and players as far as I could see, but I personally didn't get along with it at all. And the funny thing is, that I continued playing it almost until the end, because I really didn't understand that gulf back then. It didn't help that I probably still kind of liked certain aspects of it. Just enough to keep me going as I became more frustrated and underwhelmed as it went on.
It was really helpful for me, because it helped me realize that my own feelings/opinions sometimes simply don't exist out there. Well, of course similar attitudes surely exist, but they might not have been expressed yet, or at the very least these opinions will be hard to find.
I played it a while back because all of my friends raved about it. I also didn't see what the fuss was and didn't bother finishing it
i'm not sure that logic allows for discussing averages easily. when people say everyone hated it, i would think they mean the majority that played and reviewed it hated it. so that's where that comes from. and it's a useful metric in many cases, as the companies argue in the same way, e.g. "everyone loves it" or ign 10/10.
Loved 'The Outter Worlds'🎉
Think I'll replay it next month
Hmm, I don't know. While I agree with your perspective on how to approach a game, I feel like if no game can be objectively bad, then no game can be objectively good either. If people who feel a game is bad and call it such should stop because no game is truly bad, then would it be right for people to be allowed to act as though a game is objectively good as well? After all, no game has 100% positive ratings either.
I am not intending to come off as too analytical. I think my point is that I find people who cannot see any fault with their favorite game and who will defend even the slightest critique of it as tiresome and annoying and someone who will declare a game to be bad simply because they didn't like it or who were unwilling to give it a chance.
Either way, you are absolutely right that everyone should approach games from their own perspective rather than the perception that our opinions are somehow objective on any given title. You do not need to act as if a game is objectively good or bad whilst still helping others decide whether or not they will like a game.
Every time art is discussed, I feel like subjectivity is implied. When I say a game is "bad" I see it as just being shorthand of "I tried it and didn't particularly like it, but your opinion might be different and that's valid too". Of course, I don't go out of my way to recommend games I find bad and might even recommend against playing it, stating why I don't think someone should try that game, but I don't think very many people would ever think of their opinion as an absolute, even when it sort of sounds like they're presenting it that way. It's just how we discuss art, I suppose.
You'd be surprised, really. So many, SO many critics out there have a different, and often less nuanced perspective on video games. It's unfortunate but that's just how it is.
Only major complaint that I have with The Outer Worlds is that it's too short.
People on the internet love to hate the things they hate far more than they love the things they love. Ig bitterness and anger gets more views usually
This has been the second time I've heard you talk about Mort, he's one of the first people I watch for reviews. I'm glad to hear you promoting him. Mort is awesome, I found him about a year ago.
Great vid
Speaking of good bad movies, I've watched Ninja: The Final Duel three times recently (with different people) and it's only managed to grow on me every time.
I saw a clip of a streamer giving their opinion of a game. It was a positive response.
The top comment was something along the lines of "nah man, this opinion is a miss. This game is bad".
That has lived rent free in my head since. Not just one dude saying it, but it was the top upvoted comment.
Lots of internet discourse of games can be so exhausting, and this is a big reason.
Yeah if you enter in a discourse with a dull person that tries to just negate your opinion because theirs is the "true" one the only way to not waste time and strength is just stop communicating with them. No point in talking to a wall
I like your point on Mortismal gaming. 99% of the "reviews" by youtubers are done on release day, with less than an hour played.
It's like reviewing a movie without having seen it. So the only arguments they can have is the game looks nice and runs well.
Or like you said, their review starts by "here's why i'm right and you're wrong".
Some youtubers, however, take their time and have a proper constructed criticism.
By the way, it's thanks to him that i bought Tyranny, and i'm currently playing it.
Interesting topic, funny enough originally I thought Arcanum was terrible because I watched my brother get killed by zombies easily and I had no idea it was because he didn't spec into fighting type skills, some point afterwards he convinced me to give it a try and I changed my mind and thought it was a great game.
I think this mentality can start to lean into toxic positivity where criticisms can be deflected and the game developer themselves can become narcissists.
Agreed, which is why the opposite is true too, that there is no such thing as an objectively good game. Something you like might be something someone else hates.
The idea that developers "need" harsh criticism to avoid narcissism overlooks the natural regulatory mechanisms of the video game market. Games that don't meet the majority of a target demographic's expectations naturally fall short in the market which is already a direct feedback loop for developers.
Now, CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, distinct from cruelty, is essential for growth and improvement. When people really think out their feedback and say it in a consumer perspective format ("as a player, I wish the game was longer" vs. "thig game is too fucking short and the developers are lazy"), it can provide specific insights that can help refine games, whereas cruelty just demoralizes and is almost always misdirected anyway
This industry thrives on a balance of positive reinforcement and constructive feedback, not on negativity. Anyone who has worked a single day at a dysfunctional studio knows that negativity absolutely DESTROYS a game dev process.
So yeah... Tl;Dr - the idea that developers need to be "put in their place" in any way misunderstands the collaborative nature of game development and the role of market dynamics in shaping game success.
@@tomklovert4353Perfectly said.
@@tomklovert4353 You don't live in reality if you think there's some kind of alternative to people being harsh. You parse out the actual criticism and add it to the pile.
Emotion and perceived harshness comes from a place of wanting it to be better, because people care. Apathy is much, much worse.
The market means little. Capitalism and consumption today is FAR from merit based.
@@Hrogthar Acknowledging the value of criticism doesn't mean rejecting that all forms of harsh feedback don't exist. Rather, it's about promoting that feedback that is constructive and actionable over that which is demeaning. The emotional intensity behind criticism can indeed stem from a desire for improvement, but it's worthwhile to channel this passion in ways that foster growth rather than discourage creativity. While apathy is undesirable, respect and constructive engagement are not synonymous with indifference.
Also, while the market may not be perfectly merit-based, it remains a significant indicator of a game's reception and success. The challenge lies in navigating these market dynamics to understand and meet player expectations, which is a nuanced process beyond mere capitalism and consumption. My ideal world would have consumers strike a balance where developers are motivated by meaningful feedback and where the industry as a whole benefits from a culture of constructive criticism.
Because ultimately, at the end of the day, all of the "fuck you lazy dev" nonsense gets ignored, and if THAT'S the shape of the majority of the voices clambering for merit, the market becomes the ONLY feedback that is worth listening to (or at least, the only feedback we can stomach lol)... And nobody wants games to turn into that.
liking something and not liking something is different than something being bad or good. and it's ok to like bad things.
no, that is actually endorsing and perpetuating evil (i'm not religious, evil is a word to symbolize intentionally bad)
good and bad are morality terms associated with truth and right, falsity and wrong
the degradation of language and culture and society as civilization collapses has produced a situation of inverted meaning being applied and the perpetuation of evil
evil, again, is a word symbolizes 'bad' which is large in scope of definition, but includes such things as valuing the unhealthy destructive ways of being/living
exploitation, narcissism
yes, narcissism, which Tim doesn't understand at all
the 'crux' of narcissism is that it is unhealthy 'self' motivations, with complete unawareness of the self (he stares at himself but all he sees is the surface, not who he truly is)
another manifestation evil is that pervasive ignorance that is born of apathy, neglect, hedonistic indulgences that num and dum the brain into a passive submissive consumptive PET in a cage being played with by masters that rule their lives (corporate slavery through world socialist economic/trade groups and organizations that uphold that[UN, NATO, WHO, world banks, etc.)
those are the evil things
make better choices, stop buying games that suck your soul instead of contribute to it
which at this point may be nothing, you may have played too many games and wasted so much time and space in your life that the only path for redemption is a complete reversal of lifestyle, going out to live in the woods and see if you can hack it
Reviews are written by people, and sometimes people choose the wrong rating (a review criticizes the game, but the icon says "recommend" or vice versa) or write a sarcastic review with the "recommend" mark. For these reasons, there are no games with 100% negative reviews (until there is a person who does not mind spending $100 to release the game for this purpose).
Often for me, I attribute "bad" more often to outside circumstances or because they are made in an environment that has made headlines in the news. Such as "crunch". But I also attribute it to companies like Blizzard because of the stuff I hear about the company, so it's not even really about the games themselves, because they can be well made, brilliantly designed games even. But I cannot support certain behaviors inside of the company.
People who think this pedantically, versus intuitively, have too much free time.
People are baffled when I tell them Starfield was my game of the year over Baldur's Gate 3.
I just like space Sci Fi settings more, as well as emergent sandbox gameplay over boxed in theme park design. Different tastes. It's really that simple. I feel like gamers are far too harsh on many games that come out in modern times.
try out Mass Effect if you like scifi settings. or maybe you have tried it already? if you haven't I recommend playing it from the first entry even though it's a bit outdated maybe.. with the Legendary edition it's not that dated though.
nah bro you just like a shit game, which is totally okay.
I definitely would agree with approaching it nuanced, but that's also where i had an issue with a take from you in the video about good games too. In it, you talk about how if you look at bugs as being what makes bad games and the rest then has to be good, so there would be no good games because all games have bugs. I think that approach is flawed because it's too absolutist, there are absolutely games that are more buggy than others. And there are games that are just much better on a technical level than others, prime example factorio. Factorio is without any doubt much better on a technical level than something like Kerbal Space Program. I like both games, and have thousands of hours in both, but KSP is a lot more buggy, it performs worse, and overall it's just much worse on a technical level. It does other things well, so i wouldn't call it a bad game overall.
And then as you said, looking at different aspects and judging those is what makes a lot more sense in my opinion as well. You can look at things like, how well designed are the quests, is the tutorial effective at teaching you how to play the game, what's the mod support like, ... think there are still some objective was games can be good or bad. I just also think it takes some nuance as well, and you have to look at the different aspects in a game and those are much easier to judge individually.
Basically, i think it's very well possible to talk about aspects of a game that are good or bad in an at least somewhat objective way. Where i see the problem is that it's too reductionist to then say "the game overall is good or bad", because how can you really compare a game being really good in some regards, and awful in others and reduce that to a single binary good or bad? I don't think that makes much sense to even do, and it's where things get really subjective because then you have to consider what you personally put more emphasis on. Do you prefer a game to be stable, or having really engaging gameplay? Can you enjoy playing a buggy game because it has a great vision, and you don't mind having to tinker to make things work? Or does that take you out of it and you prefer a smooth experience and a very polished game, even if that maybe doesn't have as many features or isn't exactly the setting you'd want? That's where getting to an objective answer becomes really hard or next to impossible, unless a game is phenominally bad in basically every way - or good.
One of the few games that i would feel comfortable calling overall good is, again, factorio because there really is not much i can criticise and it does basically everything well. Even the act of making mods for this game which most players never will do is a good experience and the devs are putting a lot of thought and effort into that, adding new modding features based on community requests etc. But factorio is special in that way, and most games i wouldn't want to call either good or bad because most games are frankly mixed, there's things i think they do well and others i think they do badly. A lot of games i play, even ones i play a lot, have some serious flaws but i still enjoy playing them. So when talking about how good those are, i think the only thing that really makes sense is to talk about those individual things they do well or poorly, but i think a single "the game overall is good or bad" rarely makes sense.