Critiquing critiques

[Velvet Crowe]

The purpose of this topic is that I wanted to comment on the critiques people have made on certain games as I thought some of the criticisms were odd or didn't make much sense. I'm not trying to insult anyone with this topic; rather, I want there to be some dialog on what has been written. Feel free to shoot at me, too.

Lisa:

"i was genuinely expecting something of a lightweight history lesson when i got this, so i was really disappointed when i found out that all the historical names, countries, landmarks, were all nothing but pretty packaging for an admittedly decent strategy game. you could replace everything with star wars lingo and it wouldn't make a damn difference."

Either you have an extremely poor understanding of history or you didn't pay much attention to the historical influence in Civ V. Either way, you're wrong. A lot of components of Civ V are based on actual history - for example, each Civ's unique traits are based on actual history:

The Aztecs get a culture bonus each time they kill a unit. The reason for this from a historical perspective is that it was based on how the Aztecs would capture their enemies and use them as a sacrifice. Human sacrifice was very much a part of Aztec culture, thus the devs utilize this aspect of their history as a gameplay mechanic.

Ethiopia has a combat bonus against civs with more cities than they do. This is based on how the Ethiopians had overcome overwhelming odds to reject European colonialism during the race for Africa, notably in their success at the Battle of Adwa which the game outright references. It's logical to give Ethiopia a bonus in this direction considering their history.

It's also important to consider the flavor here too - Much of the music, diplomacy screens, and aesthetics are based on real history. For example, the Mongolian peace theme is based on one of the classics of Mongolian music. If it were based on Star Wars, this is something you'd surely be missing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfpLk5AJ1ME

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ref-zqLtx-4

For someone who argues that games are more than just gameplay, it seems rather ironic of you to have an oversight like this.

Least we forget the massive modding community behind Civ - if history did not matter to the overall product, why is it that people make so many based on history and use history as a basis to design these civs, much like the devs 2K do? I mean, I doubt people would make something like this if the game was about Star Wars.

http://civilization-v-customisation.wik ... sei_Tutu_I)

On a final note, your argument can be applied to anything based on history. You could say the exact same thing about Schindler's List, Band of Brothers, Lawrence of Arabia, or Europa Universalis. All of these things could be about Star Wars and there'd be no difference over the essence of what these products are about. However, what Civ and these other products would lose is the context of history and the flavor that it would bring. Schindler's List would ultimately be the same regardless, but its impact would be lost if it were about Wookies rather than Holocaust survivors. The same could be said about Civ - we'd lose the dynamic utilization of history and game mechanics, as well as the cool flavor that brings in music, visuals, and so forth. To argue that actual history has no effect on the experience of Civ V is objectively untrue.


Ocelot:

"aggravating. the animation is fluid and exciting, but the aesthetic makes the game entirely unclear. some tires can be bounced on, others are just background animations, and that lack of clarity is compounded by enemies which also fall into this ambiguous artistic design. seems like something I'd grow to enjoy more if I had nothing else to play, but I'm not so generous with movies, and that's not going to change for a game."

I don't get this argument at all. Earthworm Jim was an extremely coherent game. You use the example of tires, but if you go back and look at the level design it was pretty clear what you could bounce and what you couldn't be based on the placement of tires. Hell, levels after that one don't even use tires so I'm under the assumption you didn't play very far into the game.

And even if it was, with the way the tires were placed you wouldn't have been at a detriment in any way. There wasn't some dumb, amateurish shit where a game presents something looks like a platform and you get screwed over for acting like it is. I also have no idea what you mean by "ambiguous artistic design."

Brickwall:

"Fighting games by nature have built in obsolescence."

This coming from someone who clearly knows nothing about fighting games - tell this to the people who continue to play SFII, 3rd Strike, MVC2, or various KOF games. If anything, a lot of people in the competitive scene tend to prefer older games for a variety of reasons.

Ocelot on Timesplitters:

" a staple feature of Walmart bargain bins everywhere"

Niggah, wut? Timesplitters is a cult classic and has a dedicated fanbase. If it's a staple of bargain bins, then it was certainly far above the heap in that case.

Ocelot on Smash 4:

"rating the Wii U version: the kinetic excitement of the first two games is largely back, and while it sharply blunts the skill curve from Melee, there's still enough technique involved to make the game fun from a competitive perspective. likely as balanced as the series will get, though the DLC characters, particularly Cloud and Bayonetta, are so much better than the rest that it's a little disheartening."

This isn't wrong so much as it is misleading. For one, it's ONLY Cloud and Bayonetta that are dominant. While the other DLC characters are strong, Roy and Lucas are considered mediocre. Plus most people don't rate the likes of Ryu, Corrin, and Mewtwo as highly as they do free characters like Marth, Diddy, or ZSS. Smash 4 isn't a "pay 2 win" game as you seem to imply.

But even then Cloud and Bayo are not as prevalent in the top 10 like what Fox or Marth is in Melee. It seems rather ironic you'd give such a criticism towards Smash 4 but then ignore how Melee is even more imbalanced in terms of picks.

Take Canada Cup, for example. There was only 2 Clouds and one Bayonetta in the top ten, and MKLeo didn't even consistently play Cloud throughout the tournament.

In contrast, we saw 4 Fox players and 1 Marth reach top 10 in Melee.

https://www.eventhubs.com/news/2017/oct ... -and-more/

Evo 2017:

5 Fox players and 3 Marth's in top 10

4 Bayo's and one Cloud in Smash 4

http://shoryuken.com/2017/07/16/evo-201 ... s-results/

It's pretty clear you're ignoring Melee's balance in your criticism here.

[jeff_h]

someone critiquing other people's reviews while their own has gems like "autism simulator" and "unlikable pretentious faggot" is pretty rich

[CosmicMonkey]

You're missing "This game has the Jewiest developers, I swear."

Hey, this isn't Mel Gibson's secret account is it?

[Daisoujou]

You're missing "This game has the Jewiest developers, I swear."

Hey, this isn't Mel Gibson's secret account is it?

It doesn't help that it's wrong. The only acceptable pick for Jewiest developer is Dave Gilbert, for making The Shivah.

[Velvet Crowe]

someone critiquing other people's reviews while their own has gems like "autism simulator" and "unlikable pretentious faggot" is pretty rich

Haha, I admit to being crude in my reviews but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

You're missing "This game has the Jewiest developers, I swear."

Hey, this isn't Mel Gibson's secret account is it?

It doesn't help that it's wrong. The only acceptable pick for Jewiest developer is Dave Gilbert, for making The Shivah.

Damn, you got me there.

[dunbar]

Some of this is critique and a lot of it is semantics.