is there good and bad ..... or is it all about taste

before, I used to believe that each game deserves a certain score/rate (x out of y). but everything changed later (when I came here) and I started to believe that no matter how bad a game looked to me, it could be considered one of the best to another gamer. but is it true? would it be OK to see a review in mag for (let's say) Zelda: Wind Waker and it was givin 1 or 2 out of 10. (and don't say yes unless you've really tried it)

out of all these. what do you think. are there good and bad games?

That's a tough question. But yes some people will view certain games as 10/10 or 9/10 while others can't rate it because maybe it comes down to as simple as them not respecting/liking the genre.

For example, I am not an RPG gamer. So it would be silly for me to go out and rate Panzer Dragoon Saga.

It'd be better if someone more experienced in the field does it, know what I mean.

But I do believe there's certain good taste that exists. For example, for its time, I don't see how anyone could give Street Fighter II less than a 7/10. That would display bad taste IMO if anyone did.

there are really bad games(state of emergency,wreckless,etc) and there are also undeserving games that get good scores. But it all dosen't matter anyway cause the gaming industry's "professionals" are all a bunch of people who usually know nothing of the games they're playing. and they are overly biased. it all comes down to taste

Case in point, for me at least:

Conflict: Desert Storm recieved a 4.5 from Gamespot, I tried the game out anyway and was pleasantly surprised. It's one of the better team-based/military games I've ever played, more enjoyable than Ghost Recon. If you can get over the somewhat choppy framerate, its definitely a very enjoyable game, and everybody who I've seen play it for the first time almost immediately likes it. I can't wait for the GC version to hit the shelves with a number of improvements.

I think there is such thing as bad games. If the premise is stupid, bad control or there are so many bugs are glitches it is a bad game. If it is none of the above I think it boils down jst to be a matter of what you like.

While I like Sentai shows, incorporating this into the "Shinobi" franchise was just horrible. Thus the Sega Saturn game *Shin Shinobi Den* = Bad. Although the chick in the game was kinda' hot, and it's one of the few games I've ever seen subtitled in English with original Japanese language, the usage of that medium (Sentai) just made the whole production look lame. To me this would be a horrid game, and the controls were fucked too. But then you have some ppl who loved that particular game, while I don't like Hotsuma and the new generation, that was a bastardly way to finish off the Joe Musashi line... Super Shinobi II should've ended it IMO.

contra: ss is the best game on the PS2. it didn't achieve such high scores [6's and 7's]

also, conflict desert storm is an AMAZING game. 4.5 rating? that's bullshit.

reminds me of Kakuto Chojin; that games soundtrack alone bumps it up to an 8 baby.

good times
ray

zorro:
there are really bad games(state of emergency,wreckless,etc) and there are also undeserving games that get good scores. But it all dosen't matter anyway cause the gaming industry's "professionals" are all a bunch of people who usually know nothing of the games they're playing. and they are overly biased. it all comes down to taste

Click to expand...

Just to prove K'_127's point, I'll say that I quite liked State of Emergency and Wreckless.
They wern't brilliant, but they were entertaining and well put togeather (good framerate, no bugs, solid control).
So I think that just labelling them as 'really bad' is putting too much emphasys on your on personal taste.

The only time I could say a game is truly awful is whe it has some critical bugs or control problems that should have been removed in the testing phase.
The rest is down to the individual to decide.