Goodbye Platinum.

Using Metacritic/Gamerankings/any aggregate site as a way to gauge quality is dumb. Please don't do that. I know you were showing what reviewers think in comparison, but I know you've seen a lot of things here to indicate maybe a lot of people here dislike reviewers, so your point is null. The point was nulled right away anyway by the fact a lot of review sites can't be on metacritic because they don't do ratings out of ten. With P* appealing more to niche crowds, it's just not the best place to figure out where that crowd stands. The best way to see the quality of a CUHRAAAAZY game is to dive into the community and observe conversations about it. Just saying, they're hard games for AAA reviewers to review well. Tech specs and yawn bullcrap are always taken too far into granted over performance and fun levels, so they get low scores for the same reason fun, quality b-movies get low scores.

Arkham and Yakuza are beat 'em ups. I know it doesn't seem it, but they are different.

The rest are up to your taste, but I'd only put two of those games on par with anything P* has made.

EDIT: I'm aware my avatar and sig SEEMINGLY make me biased, but as I said- it's all up to taste and if you want to know about cuhrazy games- community. community. community. Like, that crowd secretly adores Alice: Madness Returns, El Shaddai and Darksiders II and they're not afraid to tell you why despite low review scores. Anarchy Reigns is like their Smash Bros. And their representative is DMC4 Dante.

 

I'm using the only numerical and standardised quality of games available, limited though it might be it's better than a handful of opinions. Quantitative and qualitative data are both valid.
And just because some people don't like reviewers doesn't make reviewers redundant, irrelevant or wrong, it also doesn't make my point null simply because you believe it to be null, that's not how opinions and discussions work.
And that's a bit ignorant to believe people reviewing AAA games are unable to rate indie games, i've seen plenty of reviewers do both, love both, and review them using their same scoring system. I remember one reviewer scoring Arkham Origins the same as Gone Home, and I think Thomas Was Alone scored higher than both for them.
And the best way to see the quality of a game is by playing it. A game is meant to be played, not hyped up.

Communities of games consists of fans, who are subjective, biased and, well, fans. I don't know any fan base that can objectively and reliably tell me the pros and cons of a game they love, it's just not done. Twilight communities may love the films, but they're **** films no doubt. CoD's community is terrible, they consist of the most casually offensive and aggressive fans I've had the dishonour to converse with. I would never look at a community to inform me about a game, it has more to dissuade me than convince.

 

Out of curiosity, how does Arkham and Yakuza being based around a beat 'em up combat system make them unfit the title of "character action games"? Yakuza more than Batman, but both still fit. Is it because they fit under beat 'em up?

 

... Just letting you know I'm done here.[DOUBLEPOST=1383180718][/DOUBLEPOST]

Yeah, CAGs are more focused on combos and dodging while supplying the playing with very low health. They also have more focus on mastering the combat system and have combat that generally fits the character. DMC and MGR are the genre definers here, where cocky Dante has ridiculous and over the top combat where he even does tricks and Raiden's combat is sheer aggression and about ridding an enemy as fast as possible. Meanwhile, beat 'em ups focus less on the how and more on just beating down endless cannon fodder- usually with your fists. Streets of Rage, Viewtiful Joe, Arkham, and Yakuza are def beat 'em ups.If you ask yourself: "Would I compare this to Streets of Rage?" and the answer is yes, it's generally a beat 'em up. That help? Because I'd never compare DMC with Streets of Rage, heh.

 

TIL: opinions are suddenly valid when numbers are attached to them.

 

Was just trying to address your claim, I say quantitative and qualitative data are both valid, i'm just using one to counter your point. You can use other evidence to counter mine if you find it.

 

You know.... just because you claim it's valid... doesn't prove its validity, right...? It can be your thought that its valid, but it can be the receiving end that it isn't. Busa in this case does not think its valid. When you press the issue of its validity, you've changed to a debate of semantics and lost the goal. Rather, appeal to who you're arguing with.

 

Hayabusa sarcastically claimed that my evidence was invalidated because 'numbers were attached'. He claimed that the validity of numbers was wrong in this argument and brought up that issue, I simply stated I do consider them valid, responding to his claim. I didn't bring up the issue of validation of my own research, actually reading back I think you did.
You claimed my validity was wrong and nullified because I was using metacritic as evidence to which I said quantitative data (the metacritic review scores) and qualitative data (opinions and experiences on what you've played) are both valid. Metacritic is technically a bridging of both data, of opinions of what a game is worth and numbering it as such, clear qualitative data in the gaming world usually involves sales figures of the games (if people like that game, they buy it), which I also claimed CoD, the best selling franchise of this generation, beat Platinum on. On both fronts, CoD is reviewed better by professionals and the public alike, as well as having much greater sales. That is a valid argument, because "an argument is valid if and only if its conclusion is logically entailed by its premises."

My points aren't being challenged at the moment, my methods are. Methods should be challenged if there is relevant counter arguments to challenge it. I'd rather someone challenge my points, because that's how discussions can continue and develop into more relevant arguments. But I think both you and Hayabusa have given up, mostly, and I'm waiting for someone to address my points, so I'm just trying to defend my validity in the mean time. Maybe no one will, dunno, but I don't think I should be doing nothing whilst people are claiming i'm wrong. I will continue to defend my argument as long as I am convinced it is right, or until I feel I can not convince the other party it is.

 

Just because a game sold well doesn' t mean people actually liked it. Granted, if its carbon copy sequels still sold well chances are people did like it.

About metacritic scores though :

Here' s the full thing : http://insomnia.ac/commentary/how_good_exactly_is_perfect/
As full of himself as the guy sounds he sure raises good points.

 

This is true, sales equal popularity in most cases on top of the obvious profits, copies produced and other basics. I would argue that popularity, however, does imply people like it, to a degree. Which, like you say shows in sequels, but even that isn't an exact think either.

Very good read, but this guy is very selective and critical of certain aspects, kind of is skewed and confined points as good as they are. Still, not too many critical reflections on video gaming, take what you can get after all and worth the read.

 

Woo, unexpected my first ever thread since I joined to last over 5 posts o_o

 

You could always settle for palladium.

 

So am I the only one who thought of this Platinum?

"Yes Nova"

WELL FUCK Y'ALL THEN

Also for its own sake I'd like to point out a few hypocrisies I observed

Here we have an accusation of ignorance

...and here, an expression thereof

Would you call yourself a mindless KH junkie? No? Do you think yourself unable to rate it fairly? And what do you think of some of the other users here? Now, having answered all those to yourself: Are we not all part of the community? Did not the majority of us come here because we enjoy Kingdom Hearts?

Food for thought. NOW LET'S MOVE ON

Ok, that sounds fair

Little snippy but still logically sound

Whoa whoa wHOA WHAT

Now you yourself did the honors in pointing out the flaws in my colleague's argument, so I won't bother - but suffice it to say all I see in this exchange (and, in fact, in most arguments between you two) is two people dismissing what's inconvenient to their argument and glorifying what's convenient.

Frankly I think you're both wrong, but that's hardly relevant. If y'all are going to be wrong, you could at least be wrong with style ;o

 

My point was that fans are not an impartial source to argue the goods and bads of a game. I'm not saying fans are mindless, that's a bit of a leap from that statement I made, but I am saying that communities as a whole do not make a convincing, unbiased argument for the product they like.

I'm sure there are Twilight fans who could argue with me about the merits of the films and positives and why they like it whilst still pointing out its abundant flaws, but it is a rare thing to simply find a fan on the internet who doesn't love something and has trouble reasoning and convincing others why, because more often than not they're drowned out by the rest of the fan base screaming love and admiration for it, even though I find the films to be awful.
I remember recently the back lash old Start Trek fans had about the recent rebooted films, about the inaccuracies of the universe, the casting and the characterisation changes of some characters. I, however, coming to the film series for the first time, really liked the Start Trek film. I also know a few Trekkies, one in real life and a few online who liked the new film and gave me reasons why its good. The sequel had a woman in bra and panties or something and the fan base kicked up a fuss about sexism in the film, and how Star Trek films have ruined the entire universe. The fans I know told me it wasn't a big part of the movie and was narrative significant (still haven't seen the sequel) and have since warned me to avoid the Trekkie fan base because of their bias and nostalgia related enjoyment of the old series vs the new.
I also remember the bias of Devil May Cry fans, who hated the rebooted DmC game by Ninja Theory, claiming it was completely bad and utterly terrible compared to the past games and so on. However, from reviewers and people I know who have played it, found the game to be good, not perfect but enjoyable. I've since played a bit of the game, and I've agreed that it is good, and would want to play more of it when I have the inclination for a slash em up.

Maybe it's just rebooted things that get the **** storm from the fan bases and cause distorted generalisations, but i've just seen too many Xbox or PS fans arguing irrelevant points and believing what they like is better without a convincing argument behind it to listen to fans. Does it mean I ignore fans opinions? No, I just take it with a pinch of salt and scepticism.

In actual answer to your question, I can't explain why I love KH, because in my brain I know it's kinda... not **** but sort of ******. I mean, we've got games on every system since the PS2 era for a new game, with a plot that is made up as it goes along, a cheesy arse script and repeated level designs (KH1, KH CoM, KH Coded all have the same world! GAH!). The pros I guess are fun combat systems, a weird yet good crossover of franchises, good voice acting and... it kinda looks nice? There are more cons than pros in my head, and yet I still love it. Dunno why. I think I might be a 'junkie' in the sense that I still buy the games over and over wthout questioning its quality till far too late. I would probably rate it unfairly, i'd give it a higher score thna it deserves, because I'd want people to play it and experience it as well as hopefully boost sales and get more games to be made in the series.

See above about my relationships with fan bases.

 

Hey guys, what's going on this thre-

 

Arright, let's just keep this short:

You can't trust every fan, but you can't trust every reviewer either. You've had bad experiences with the former; many of us have had bad experiences with the latter. Ultimately both require discretion on the reader's end, and posting Metacritic scores to say a game is bad is just as shallow is pointing at a dedicated fanbase and saying it must be good. You don't know the character of that community, true, but at the same time you can't say all of those scores were fair.

 

oh so like this

oh so like this

 

Doesn't really fit into the CAG department because it's not really a combo system you master, but more just pummeling enemies. You can pummel enemies however you like.

 

so like this?

You can beat the DMC games with just combo A, you don't need to learn shotgun hike/JC, royalguard, crazy combos like UT,aerial rave, E&I switching or really anything of the combo system, you can just pummel and dodge the enemies with a standard combo like in God Hand.



(I thought I had a picture of a DMC cover but I don't so this will have to do)

 

You can, but you'd do poorly which is against the entire point of CAGs.