What are you playing?

[BurningDoom]

Modern Warfare 3 won game of the year awards and got great scores too. That doesn't mean anything. Yes, it's a solid game, but that's what you can expect from a game with a mega budget.
Average gamer hasn't played as many games as intermediate, avid and hardcore gamers and therefore aren't as knowledgeable. A gamer who has played 100 RPGs within his lifetime has a better grasp of how good RPG X really is than gamer who has only played 5 or 10.

But critics, website reviewers, and magazine reviewers have. Again, it's a combination of the 3 that makes it impressive is what I'm saying. Also, I hope you aren't implying that me and BoneSnapDeez haven't played a lot of games.

And weren't you just arguing that the metacritic score means nothing? Now it's the average gamer's opinion that means nothing? So who's opinion is it that shouldn't matter? The critics, or the gamers?

[Fragems]

Playing The Last of Us currently and I have to say the intro level was one of the best I have ever seen in a game. Experiencing that first level alone was well worth the $60. It ranks up there with the first stage of FFVII in my book. They captured the insanity of the outbreak perfectly and oh the emotion was freaking amazing .

Game spoilers do not read if you ever intend to play the game because it's freaking amazing and you don't want to ruin it.

The fact that they let me play as Joel's daughter was freaking awesome. I thought they were going to pull a cheap jump scare and kill her off while she was looking for her dad. Was 99% sure she was going to get it at the first glass door she had to walk by since the dog was already freaking out. Glad that they held in the urge and kept her around. The car ride was also awesome thanks to the free cam and the fact that she actually moved around the seat as you moved the camera. Finally after the car crashed the whole chase scene having to carry her was great really kept the "oh shit" feeling going as I ran from a horde of infected and cemented the father-daughter bond together. The end of the level was also very well done I figured that she wasn't making it out alive, but holy shit the scene with the soldier totally blew me away. I thought for sure he would just run them off but hell no he opens freaking fire nailing them both and inflicting a wound that not only kills the daughter but gives her just enough time to blurt out a few words before bleeding out in Joel's arms. To top everything off it's his freaking birthday and she just gave him a present and the had a touchy feely moment before the out break turned the world to shit.

All i can say is game is amazing. From the first 4-5 hours i have spent in it I already want a sequel/prequel. This game deserves at least 2-3 of them.

BEST PS3 Exclusive I have played as of now.

[Menegrothx]

But critics, website reviewers, and magazine reviewers have.

I have little faith on those at times. A game like Modern Warfare 3 gets a perfect ten but Metro 2033 a 8 because of some bullshit reason (-no english voice acting - no multiplayer, or something like that).
The relationship between big budget AAA developers and mainstream critics is a shady one.

Also, I hope you aren't implying that me and BoneSnapDeez haven't played a lot of games.

I have no clue how many RPGs you've played. I know BoneSnap is one of the biggest RPG fans of this forum (btw he said "I'm not crazy about Oblivion", not "Oblivion is better than Morrowind,").
I was speaking generally. If you've only played new school RPGs on Xbox 360, you've seen a much smaller part of the complete picture than some one who has played countless RPGs on numerous different platforms, and therefore less qualified to judge whether a RPG is good or not.

And weren't you just arguing that the metacritic score means nothing? Now it's the average gamer's opinion that means nothing? So who's opinion is it that shouldn't matter? The critics, or the gamers?

The opinion of professional designers and those who have the most experience with the genre are the best at judging a game. For example Yahtzee (the humorous game reviewer) is good at judging certain genres and games, but he doesn't know a shit about fighting games. Some one who's played at tournaments and has a lot of experience with all kinds of fighters, good and bad, popular and obscure, new and old, is the one whose opinion you should ask when it comes to fighting games. Yet that person might not have a clue when it comes to RPGs, or any other genre for that matter.
All opinions and reviews are tainted by personal preferences and in some cases nostalgia. But good design is good design. Good writing is good writing. Art is something that's harder to judge (the artstyle of Final Fantasy 9 might be off-putting to some while others adore it, there's no right or wrong in this case).

[Violent By Design]

How is 'art' hard to judge but writing isn't? Writing is art...

[BurningDoom]

But critics, website reviewers, and magazine reviewers have.

I have little faith on those at times. A game like Modern Warfare 3 gets a perfect ten but Metro 2033 a 8 because of some bullshit reason (-no english voice acting - no multiplayer, or something like that).
The relationship between big budget AAA developers and mainstream critics is a shady one.

Also, I hope you aren't implying that me and BoneSnapDeez haven't played a lot of games.

I have no clue how many RPGs you've played. I know BoneSnap is one of the biggest RPG fans of this forum (btw he said "I'm not crazy about Oblivion", not "Oblivion is better than Morrowind,").
I was speaking generally. If you've only played new school RPGs on Xbox 360, you've seen a much smaller part of the complete picture than some one who has played countless RPGs on numerous different platforms, and therefore less qualified to judge whether a RPG is good or not.

And weren't you just arguing that the metacritic score means nothing? Now it's the average gamer's opinion that means nothing? So who's opinion is it that shouldn't matter? The critics, or the gamers?

The opinion of professional designers and those who have the most experience with the genre are the best at judging a game. For example Yahtzee (the humorous game reviewer) is good at judging certain genres and games, but he doesn't know a shit about fighting games. Some one who's played at tournaments and has a lot of experience with all kinds of fighters, good and bad, popular and obscure, new and old, is the one whose opinion you should ask when it comes to fighting games. Yet that person might not have a clue when it comes to RPGs, or any other genre for that matter.
All opinions and reviews are tainted by personal preferences and in some cases nostalgia. But good design is good design. Good writing is good writing. Art is something that's harder to judge (the artstyle of Final Fantasy 9 might be off-putting to some while others adore it, there's no right or wrong in this case).

So you were insinuating as much. With as much of a regular as I am here, and with the systems you can see listed on my signature, it's astonishing to think that another regular here would assume that I only know "new school RPGs on XBox 360". Some of my favorite games of all time include King's Field, Diablo, Neverwinter Nights, Chrono Trigger, and Dragon Warrior IV. Been playing games for a long time, and I continue to explore games on all system.

You're right about BoneSnapDeez not saying that, my bad, it was BoringSupreez that said it.

More to the point, what makes you think all these players are inexperienced new players to RPGs? If I'm any indication, you're assumptions are wrong about many of them.

[Menegrothx]

I think graphics/artstyle/aesthetics are more of a subjective thing, while even if you're not quite enjoying the dialogue/story you can still admit it's well written and it's the same thing with music (it's not amazing to your ears but you still think it fits well in the scene/area). Then again, even if you hate the look or art direction/style of a game, you can still agree that the level/character design is unique/innovative/artistic/whatever.

I wouldn't say that writing is art. Sure the plot of SH2/PS:T/BS/SotC is art if game writing can be art, but I wouldn't say that sentences or character can be art. A NPC in a mediocre/poorly written RPG feels lifeless and is purely utilitarian. A NPC in well written RPG with a similiar "function" does the same trick, but also has personality and feels like a believable character. But it's still not art. So a cohesive package (story+characters+conversations, for example Silent Hill 2) can form something that could be called art, but individual pieces of it are not art by themselves. Eh, it's a complicated issue, I'm not sure if I'd call any RPG/game writing art besides those few examples.

[ConsoleHandheldGamer]

I'm just replaying Star Ocean: First Departure after beating Dear Esther.

[Menegrothx]

So you were insinuating as much. With as much of a regular as I am here, and with the systems you can see listed on my signature, it's astonishing to think that another regular here would assume that I only know "new school RPGs on XBox 360". Some of my favorite games of all time include King's Field, Diablo, Neverwinter Nights, Chrono Trigger, and Dragon Warrior IV. Been playing games for a long time, and I continue to explore games on all system.

You're taking this too personally. Like I said, I was speaking more in general terms. I was referring mainly to casual and intermediate current gen only gamers. Racketboy is a fairly small, mostly higher tier forum with a focus on retrogaming. The kind of people I'm referring to can be found from more popular forums with much more users and much less quality. The kind who only stick to what's popular at the moment and never bother to find info about old and obscure games nor do any kind work for the sake of knowledge (exploring new genres, obscure retro&indy games, old classics and historically important landmark games and so on).

You can mostly divide RPGs to 4 different categories. Action/combat focused WRPGs&JRPGs and story focused WRPGs&JRPGs. Combat focused W&JRPGs can be practically identical, there isn't necessarily any difference between the two. However there is a big difference between story focused W- and JRPGs. But newer WRPGs less often display the unique qualities of WRPGs, and so you could divide WRPGs into two different categories: Old school (1980-2002 cRPGs) and new school (Xbox&Xbox 360). You could say that such divide exists between JRPGs too, but the difference between old school and new school JRPGs isn't as big on a fundamental level as it is between old school and new school WRPGs (and besides, handhelds, NIS and Atlus keep the old school-type of JRPG alive to the point that the two versions of the same genre aren't really separated).

I'll admit that my experience with NWN series is very limited although I've played some. So I don't know exactly how "old school" it is. Other than that, out of the games you mentioned, none are really old school WRPGs. So I don't really know if you have any experience from old school WRPGs.

I think it's pretty clear by now, but I'll say it anyway: old school refers to a design mentality, not release year. Dark souls&Demon's souls=old school.

[BurningDoom]

So you were insinuating as much. With as much of a regular as I am here, and with the systems you can see listed on my signature, it's astonishing to think that another regular here would assume that I only know "new school RPGs on XBox 360". Some of my favorite games of all time include King's Field, Diablo, Neverwinter Nights, Chrono Trigger, and Dragon Warrior IV. Been playing games for a long time, and I continue to explore games on all system.

You're taking this too personally. Like I said, I was speaking more in general terms. I was referring mainly to casual and intermediate current gen only gamers. Racketboy is a fairly small, mostly higher tier forum with a focus on retrogaming. The kind of people I'm referring to can be found from more popular forums with much more users and much less quality. The kind who only stick to what's popular at the moment and never bother to find info about old and obscure games nor do any kind work for the sake of knowledge (exploring new genres, obscure retro&indy games, old classics and historically important landmark games and so on).

You can mostly divide RPGs to 4 different categories. Action/combat focused WRPGs&JRPGs and story focused WRPGs&JRPGs. Combat focused W&JRPGs can be practically identical, there isn't necessarily any difference between the two. However there is a big difference between story focused W- and JRPGs. But newer WRPGs less often display the unique qualities of WRPGs, and so you could divide WRPGs into two different categories: Old school (1980-2002 cRPGs) and new school (Xbox&Xbox 360). You could say that such divide exists between JRPGs too, but the difference between old school and new school JRPGs isn't as big on a fundamental level as it is between old school and new school WRPGs (and besides, handhelds, NIS and Atlus keep the old school-type of JRPG alive to the point that the two versions of the same genre aren't really separated).

I'll admit that my experience with NWN series is very limited although I've played some. So I don't know exactly how "old school" it is. Other than that, out of the games you mentioned, none are really old school WRPGs. So I don't really know if you have any experience from old school WRPGs.

I think it's pretty clear by now, but I'll say it anyway: old school refers to a design mentality, not release year. Dark souls&Demon's souls=old school.

Who cares about the difference between CRPG, WRPG, old-school, or new school? I don't remember ever discussing that. This was about whether game is good or not.

You're ignoring the mass majority of the opinion of the gamers out there, including critics, and including a few people here on Racketboy that are into all kinds of games. You're trying to point out flaws in the people, and in scores, and in reviews, and now even trying to point out flaws in what makes an RPG today; in order to try to say that the general consensus is that Oblivion is a bad RPG, when it's actually the complete opposite. It got praised EVERYWHERE.

[Menegrothx]

Who cares about the difference between CRPG, WRPG, old-school, or new school? I don't remember ever discussing that. This was about whether game is good or not.

Most new WRPGs are bad when compared to older WRPGs. People who've only played 2-4/10 games think that 6-7/10 games are great. But those who've played 9-10/10 games, the same 6-7/10 games look underwhelming.

You're ignoring the mass majority of the opinion of the gamers out there, including critics, and including a few people here on Racketboy that are into all kinds of games. You're trying to point out flaws in the people, and in scores, and in reviews, and now even trying to point out flaws in what makes an RPG today; in order to try to say that the general consensus is that Oblivion is a bad RPG, when it's actually the complete opposite. It got praised EVERYWHERE.

I said that the general consensus amongst RPG fans is that Oblivion is bad.