X-Men: Destiny Thread

[Calvin]

To be fair, I've found video game reviewers way way more spot on than movie reviewers, almost across the board. Very rarely to I get a game that got bad reviews, only to find out that they were wrong. Even if they didn't do a good job articulating why they didn't like it, usually I start playing and pretty quickly find out "oh, I see what they mean."

I think the reason for this is that movies require a lot of context. There's historical context, what the viewer brings into the movie, artistic aspects, entertainment aspects, etc. With video games, the only question really, is whether or not the gameplay is fun and functional. And that's almost universal. I have no problem trusting video game reviewers. Especially when video games are 60 bucks a pop.

And considering games will usually take hours before you can tell whether it's worthwhile or not, sitting in some store and demoing it isn't always an option.

Also, Acro is stupidly condescending.

 

[Acro]

To be fair, I've found video game reviewers way way more spot on than movie reviewers, almost across the board. Very rarely to I get a game that got bad reviews, only to find out that they were wrong. Even if they didn't do a good job articulating why they didn't like it, usually I start playing and pretty quickly find out "oh, I see what they mean."

I think the reason for this is that movies require a lot of context. There's historical context, what the viewer brings into the movie, artistic aspects, entertainment aspects, etc. With video games, the only question really, is whether or not the gameplay is fun and functional. And that's almost universal. I have no problem trusting video game reviewers. Especially when video games are 60 bucks a pop.

And considering games will usually take hours before you can tell whether it's worthwhile or not, sitting in some store and demoing it isn't always an option.

Also, Acro is stupidly condescending.

How is it condescending to explain my point to people who got hung up on details in my posts and obviously didn't understand what I was trying to say?
Are you all teenagers in here or what?

 

[ProjectPat2280]

How is it condescending to explain my point to people who got hung up on details in my posts and obviously didn't understand what I was trying to say?
Are you all teenagers in here or what?

For whatever it's worth, I didn't find u condesending, just extremely unclear.

 

[Calvin]

How is it condescending to explain my point to people who got hung up on details in my posts and obviously didn't understand what I was trying to say?
Are you all teenagers in here or what?

I probably wouldn't find it condescending if I were a teenager.

 

[BoredGuy]

ah crap, how'd this f'in game get bumped...

I was hoping Activision finally aborted this thing

 

[E-Man]

To be fair, I've found video game reviewers way way more spot on than movie reviewers, almost across the board. Very rarely to I get a game that got bad reviews, only to find out that they were wrong. Even if they didn't do a good job articulating why they didn't like it, usually I start playing and pretty quickly find out "oh, I see what they mean."

I think the reason for this is that movies require a lot of context. There's historical context, what the viewer brings into the movie, artistic aspects, entertainment aspects, etc. With video games, the only question really, is whether or not the gameplay is fun and functional. And that's almost universal. I have no problem trusting video game reviewers. Especially when video games are 60 bucks a pop.

And considering games will usually take hours before you can tell whether it's worthwhile or not, sitting in some store and demoing it isn't always an option.

Also, Acro is stupidly condescending.

I see what you are saying, but I think it's different a bit because of what is accepted in both media. With movies there is this idea of what is accepted as good, and in many cases hat it limited to genres such as historical recounts, drama, etc. It's the case of the whole Oscar feel that is deemed as superior no matter how much you enjoy summer blockbusters. It's really elitist and annoying to me.

With video games the people making and reviewing the games don't really have almost a century worth of elitism to review from. There is some elitism in regards to RPGs, but any type of game could win Game of the Year from any magazine or online journal. There really isn't this snooty idea of what a game should be, so the reviewers go over games in all facets. This is why I actually read game reviews because it is more of a break down of what to expect rather than someone telling you what is good or not. At the end of the day their ratings aren't what I'm after, but how long the game is, what type of combat system the game employs, etc. The reviewers also take into account that all the genres are different, so that's why you see so many highly rated games from all genres. With movie critics only a certain type of movie gets the high ratings such as 4 stars.

 

[Calvin]

I see what you are saying, but I think it's different a bit because of what is accepted in both media. With movies there is this idea of what is accepted as good, and in many cases hat it limited to genres such as historical recounts, drama, etc. It's the case of the whole Oscar feel that is deemed as superior no matter how much you enjoy summer blockbusters. It's really elitist and annoying to me.

With video games the people making and reviewing the games don't really have almost a century worth of elitism to review from. There is some elitism in regards to RPGs, but any type of game could win Game of the Year from any magazine or online journal. There really isn't this snooty idea of what a game should be, so the reviewers go over games in all facets. This is why I actually read game reviews because it is more of a break down of what to expect rather than someone telling you what is good or not. At the end of the day their ratings aren't what I'm after, but how long the game is, what type of combat system the game employs, etc. The reviewers also take into account that all the genres are different, so that's why you see so many highly rated games from all genres. With movie critics only a certain type of movie gets the high ratings such as 4 stars.

Definitely agreed, that's essentially what I meant by them telling us whether it's fun and functional, but more elaborated, and definitely right on.

 

[X Knight]

I watched some gameplay vids of this last night.......

and they were kind of interesting.

I actually liked the "shadow" based powers.......

this will not be a day 1 purchase for me.

but, I'll see what the reviews are. and if it goes on sale to the $20-30 range ( maybe this holiday, perhaps? ), then I might consider picking it up.

 

[El Bastardo]

To be fair, I've found video game reviewers way way more spot on than movie reviewers, almost across the board. Very rarely to I get a game that got bad reviews, only to find out that they were wrong. Even if they didn't do a good job articulating why they didn't like it, usually I start playing and pretty quickly find out "oh, I see what they mean."

I think the reason for this is that movies require a lot of context. There's historical context, what the viewer brings into the movie, artistic aspects, entertainment aspects, etc. With video games, the only question really, is whether or not the gameplay is fun and functional. And that's almost universal. I have no problem trusting video game reviewers. Especially when video games are 60 bucks a pop.

And considering games will usually take hours before you can tell whether it's worthwhile or not, sitting in some store and demoing it isn't always an option.

Also, Acro is stupidly condescending.

Entire quote intact for posterity's sake, of course, and surely not for the final line.

Game reviews are about fun and functionality, certainly, but that is not all. What all else is involved breaks down by genre, though. A platformer review will not and certainly should not read the same as the review of an RPG, nor should the two reviews touch upon the same things. In this, though, we should be careful - "fun" is not meant to be enjoyment factor of the reviewer, because the reviewer's enjoyment factor is not the same as others'. It's more about considerations such as learning curve, any possible frustrations stemming from the gameplay, and such.

Movie reviews are not - should not be - about how the reviewer feels about the movie or entertainment value or anything related. Again, these are not the same for everyone and cannot accurately analyze or represent the quality of the movie. Artistic analysis? Yes, certainly, because movies are art, but not all movies are designed to be artistic showcases. 300 was. Hero (Jet Li) was. American History X wasn't. Reviewers must consider writing quality, direction quality, cinematography, acting performances, etc. There's no room for, in a well-written movie review, for "Well, I liked it, so three-and-a-half stars."

Actually, there's no room for that in any well-written review of any medium's content. Go figure.

I see what you are saying, but I think it's different a bit because of what is accepted in both media. With movies there is this idea of what is accepted as good, and in many cases hat it limited to genres such as historical recounts, drama, etc. It's the case of the whole Oscar feel that is deemed as superior no matter how much you enjoy summer blockbusters. It's really elitist and annoying to me.

With video games the people making and reviewing the games don't really have almost a century worth of elitism to review from. There is some elitism in regards to RPGs, but any type of game could win Game of the Year from any magazine or online journal. There really isn't this snooty idea of what a game should be, so the reviewers go over games in all facets. This is why I actually read game reviews because it is more of a break down of what to expect rather than someone telling you what is good or not. At the end of the day their ratings aren't what I'm after, but how long the game is, what type of combat system the game employs, etc. The reviewers also take into account that all the genres are different, so that's why you see so many highly rated games from all genres. With movie critics only a certain type of movie gets the high ratings such as 4 stars.

It's not elitism to call a good movie a good movie, nor is it elitism to call a bad movie a bad movie. I love the movie Kuffs. In a number of ways it's brilliant, but it blows past its point of being campy by being too campy with some of the writing and the acting, and there are multiple instances where the direction causes the movie to fall flat on its face. Despite my loving it to great heights, it's strictly average at best. Same with Vin Diesel movies. I love them, but they're usually not that good.

And not all good movies get Oscar nominations. Oscar nominations generally go to popular movies, or movies it would look good to give an Oscar nomination to. And summer blockbusters aren't precluded from being good movies - Bay's first Transformers was a solid, good movie. The second and third ones sucked monkey poo.

 

[E-Man]

Definitely agreed, that's essentially what I meant by them telling us whether it's fun and functional, but more elaborated, and definitely right on.

Damn! Here I was hoping for some internet beef.

It's not elitism to call a good movie a good movie, nor is it elitism to call a bad movie a bad movie. I love the movie Kuffs. In a number of ways it's brilliant, but it blows past its point of being campy by being too campy with some of the writing and the acting, and there are multiple instances where the direction causes the movie to fall flat on its face. Despite my loving it to great heights, it's strictly average at best. Same with Vin Diesel movies. I love them, but they're usually not that good.

And not all good movies get Oscar nominations. Oscar nominations generally go to popular movies, or movies it would look good to give an Oscar nomination to. And summer blockbusters aren't precluded from being good movies - Bay's first Transformers was a solid, good movie. The second and third ones sucked monkey poo.

Good is all subjective though. It's one thing to like a movie, but it's another to think that your opinions are the only things valid when it comes to defining what is good. I find that a lot of movie critics do that while game reviewers don't.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

I don't think good or bad is subjective, that's a measurement of quality based on concrete things and evidence. Whether you find it fun or not, that's subjective. There are plenty of games or movies i've known to be bad, obviously from quality, be it visual, shoddy controls, awful plot, acting, but if I end up having fun with it in areas, it doesn't make it NOT a bad game anymore. I still recognise it as bad, just with a few redeeming qualities.

 

[BoredGuy]

^But then you're assuming a rational evaluation of evidence, and that's sadly not how people are. Saying something is good or bad is really just an extension of saying whether you liked it or not, an opinion. Not everyone might think Thor or Captain America were 'good' films, and they could present evidence to prove their point, but that wouldn't make it true to me. I felt they were good movies, and I could argue it till I die, and I'm sure there are people who feel otherwise

and on that note, everything about this game looks, to me, very 'bad'

 

[X Knight]

yeah.....this game looks really, really.......meh.........

 

[Wolvieboy17]

With movies I agree, it's slightly more problematic, but I think with games there are more technical factors that come into the assessment where you can make that call. Gameplay features how the controls handle, how responsive they are, the variety etc, graphics can be the ACTUAL graphics or the way they're presented, artistic merit, then you've got level/mission design, length of gameplay, depth of gameplay (levelling up, unlockables, goals/missions) all that sort of stuff.

 

[Calvin]

yes, certainly, because movies are art, but not all movies are designed to be artistic showcases. 300 was. Hero (jet li) was. American history x wasn't.

300?????????

...

...


...



300??????????????????

 

[El Bastardo]

Good is all subjective though. It's one thing to like a movie, but it's another to think that your opinions are the only things valid when it comes to defining what is good. I find that a lot of movie critics do that while game reviewers don't.

Except what makes a movie good - what makes anything good - is not based on opinion. Good writing is good writing. Poor writing is poor writing. Good cinematography is good cinematography. Poor screen direction is poor screen direction.

You frequent the UFC thread. Think of this in fighter terms. Anderson Silva is a good fighter, right? If my opinion is that I do not like him, and I do not like watching his fights, am I justified in claiming he's a bad fighter? No. Because he's not.

Just like, let's say, that American History X has a fantastic script and phenomenal acting while Malin Akerman as Silk Spectre II in Watchmen was ****ing horrendous. Just like George R. R. Martin is a better writer than R.A. Salvatore. These aren't opinions. They're actualities.

I don't think good or bad is subjective, that's a measurement of quality based on concrete things and evidence. Whether you find it fun or not, that's subjective. There are plenty of games or movies i've known to be bad, obviously from quality, be it visual, shoddy controls, awful plot, acting, but if I end up having fun with it in areas, it doesn't make it NOT a bad game anymore. I still recognise it as bad, just with a few redeeming qualities.

This.

^But then you're assuming a rational evaluation of evidence, and that's sadly not how people are. Saying something is good or bad is really just an extension of saying whether you liked it or not, an opinion. Not everyone might think Thor or Captain America were 'good' films, and they could present evidence to prove their point, but that wouldn't make it true to me. I felt they were good movies, and I could argue it till I die, and I'm sure there are people who feel otherwise

and on that note, everything about this game looks, to me, very 'bad'

Saying something is good or bad is often mistaken as saying whether you liked it or not, true. That's because there's a general stupidity of language in today's society.

Good and bad have no relation to whether something was enjoyed or liked. Thor is not a good movie. Thor has some enjoyment factor for me, but it's badly written, has some casting choices that do not match the outcome of acting performances, and has some odd art choices and pacing issues that are both highlighted by the poor writing. But yeah, Cap was a good movie. And look! Another summer blockbuster that wasn't bad.

 

[El Bastardo]

300?????????

...

...


...



300??????????????????

Yes, 300. It wasn't artistic? It was a highly stylized production intended to reproduce Miller's art style from the comic, transported to a medium of moving pictures.

Whether it did or didn't succeed at that intention has nothing to do with what I posted.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Good and bad have no relation to whether something was enjoyed or liked. Thor is not a good movie. Thor has some enjoyment factor for me, but it's badly written, has some casting choices that do not match the outcome of acting performances, and has some odd art choices and pacing issues that are both highlighted by the poor writing. But yeah, Cap was a good movie. And look! Another summer blockbuster that wasn't bad.

You've undermined your own argument here though, because I completely disagree about Thor, especially with the casting. There was great casting in that film, and it's pacing was much, much better than Cap. Cap rushed to the finish line the moment it hit that montage scene in the middle, at least Thor was consistent.

 

[Alchemyst]

So I watched the gameplay video for this game just now, completely not impressed with it at all. It just looks so generic, one of those games you'll get through in the span of a day or so, prolly unlocking a large majority of the achievements in one whop. I'll pass, Thanks Slactivision, you've did it again

 

[Darkness Falls]

really disappointed in what i've seen so far its a shame because i love the x-men franchise

it looks like a standard beat em up/escort someone somewhere game

and i really wish we weren't limited to 3 really uninteresting looking characters
especially when for over a decade games like the smackdown series, the godfather, saints row and various others have incorporated a create/edit character feature

its not a new development that they needed to create especially for the game
probably best to rent it first

 

[X Knight]

really disappointed in what i've seen so far its a shame because i love the x-men franchise

it looks like a standard beat em up/escort someone somewhere game

and i really wish we weren't limited to 3 really uninteresting looking characters
especially when for over a decade games like the smackdown series, the godfater, saints row and various others have incorporated a create/edit character feature

its not a new development that they needed to create especially for the game
probably best to rent it first

this is what irks me the most.........

if they let you create your own character, I would be much more interested in this game. especially, as you said, other game franchises have been doing this for years now......

 

[dudeman25]

This game will be a rental for me. I'll beat the game over the course of maybe one weekend and that's it.

 

[Calvin]

Yes, 300. It wasn't artistic? It was a highly stylized production intended to reproduce Miller's art style from the comic, transported to a medium of moving pictures.

Whether it did or didn't succeed at that intention has nothing to do with what I posted.

It was one of the most shallow movies I've ever seen, which is why I found it kind of ludicrous that you held it up as an example of a movie that strives for artistic value over pure entertainment.

Also, if success in attaining art doesn't matter in your statement, then why say American History X was an example of one that wasn't? I don't think American History X is a very successful film, but I'd say it certainly tried to be an artistic film, more than 300 did at least. Saying 300 is an example of a movie striving for artistic heights is like saying Transformers 2 is striving to be the Godfather Part 2.

 

[RED_Rider]

There's a Midway game called Awakened which was exactly the game this should have been. Creating heroes and awesome customizable powers were the key. It's probably cancelled now that Midway is gone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDvVNILg0TY

 

[Alchemyst]

This game would have been alot more interesting if you could fully customize your mutant. The 3 characters they give you all have a very forgettable appearance, if you're not gonna give me an X-Man per se, at least let me customize my mutant's appearance