• 9Apr 13

  My Thoughts: CS:GO and Why People Hate It?

  I don't want to sound biased or anything...but I love this game. CS:GO was my first CS game I ever bought, and I feel really bad that I missed out on such a classic franchise. I start playing, and of course I blow. I tried to find tips and tricks but really, this isn't that type of game. It's something that you have to really work at for yourself to get good at. I tweaked my aim sensitivity, which helped A LOT, and then I stopped aiming for the head and went for the stomach. I actually have a good reason for this too, see, I didn't know this but you actually cause more damage to the gut than to the chest, which was where I was hitting usually. I on top of the extra damage, people like to crouch a lot, and this just results in an automatic head shot for me. I win a lot of fire fights now simply because of this trick I found for myself. It may help others, but I know it helped me because I'm not the best shot in the world. Far from it, actually.
  
  Now I've been looking into the legacy of CS and I notice that a lot of older players and vets absolutely despise GO. I downloaded Source, mainly for Garry's Mod, and tried playing it. But it just didn't feel right to me. So I guess that's the whole explanation right there, it just doesn't feel right to people. It wasn't that I sucked at Source, I just like GO better. But is GO really deserving of all of the hate it receives? I think not, and I'm actually glad to see the number of people playing going up. It's a great game, and the fire fights are intense. I guess my main point is this: Is the game SO horrible that you have to have it your way? Pros don't want the game to change because they are used to what they know. It's...well what they KNOW. I think it's almost a fear type of thing where some players are afraid to try something a little different. And I also found out something rather interesting...a HUGE difference between GO and previous CS games are the hitboxes. GO hitboxes conform tighter to the models, making people harder to hit. Is this the secret that has people pissed off? That's just a question, but it's actually trained me to have a steady hand and, for the love of everything that is good, BURST FIRE.
  • Posted Apr 9, 2013 4:55 am GMT
  • Category: Opinion
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 29Mar 13

  Concerning Review Scores...

  Before you read this, this is NOT about games getting scores that they didn't or did deserve. This is about people complaining about the scores they are given, and the flowed system in how people think about how games should be scored or reviewed.
  
  So to start, I think it's obvious that a review is someone else's opinion, not your own. I have enjoyed games that people have loathed, such as Brink. There was something special and unique about Brink, I just wish the servers weren't broken, and I think the game could have been really successful as an online experience. The bots needed to be better too, but full lobbies were a blast. So yes, opinions matter. All in all, the more opinions you have, the more knowledge you have. I always do a lot of research when looking into games that I don't know anything about, or ones I'm about to purchase. Now, here's the problem: review scores. People either hate them or want them lower. No one is EVER happy with a review score. Another thing I've realized is that reviews give games 7's and 8's so much, that people think a 7 isn't good. This is the main problem. 8's should definitely be hard to achieve. So instead of dancing around the bush, I'm going to go straight into it. 5 should be average, and 1 should be the lowest score. Perhaps 0 if it even deserves it. But 5 should be average, in the middle, whatever you want to call it. Reviews should not be scored in the same mindset of a school. In school, 5 is failing. But I think video games should have 5 be in the middle, because it widens the scope and gives a more accurate representation of the score. I once saw someone say that a 4.5 meant that the game was buggy and unplayable. If that's a 4.5, then what's a 3? What's a 1? It doesn't make sense. So there you have it. I mainly just want people to stop complaining about scores, but I don't know if anyone will listen. Maybe this would actually help!
  • Posted Mar 29, 2013 11:44 pm GMT
  • Category: Rant
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 26Mar 13

  Bioshock Infinite's Random "Abysmal Scores"

  So, Bioshock Infinite has come out.  I truly wish that I could play it, simply because I loved the first Bioshock.  I have yet to finish the 2nd, but I'm working my way through it and I enjoy it as well.  So yeah, I wish I could go and just buy it, but I don't have the money at the moment.  However, I have noticed that it has been given praise of huge amounts from a lot of reviewers and players alike.  The review had just come out, and people were talking about how it was pretty much the "next great FPS game to enter the market." 

  I thought that was pretty cool.  I love System Shock 2; Ken Levine's work is astounding.  And of course his work is awesome in Bioshock, and just by watching the review I couldn't help but be fascinated by the world he has, once again, created.  I love themes and visuals that shouldn't be taken at face value, and Columbia SEEMS pretty.  But on the inside, it isn't so shiny.

  But here's the dilemma.  Now that the game has been out for a couple of days, all of the sudden I see backlash from players.  Players claiming that it's "boring and uninspired", and "easy, devoid of challenge."  To these people, I HAVE to say..."What planet are you from?" 

  It then occurred to me that this game is getting a lot of praise, and of course people will dislike it.  People disliked the first Bioshock game even.  But then another thing occurred to me....am I seeing the makings of a "Hate on Bioshock Infinite, because we're different!" bandwagon?  Am I seeing people hate on the game JUST BECAUSE it's getting high praise from critics and reviewers, which on a side note, I love VanOrd's work.  Have we really gotten to the point where when something goes mainstream, people HAVE to hate it?  I love Maroon 5.  I also love underground bands.  I love music in general, obscure stuff that's experimental, and I can jam to Maroon 5 along with that.  So simply because they're more mainstream, they're subject to hate and criticism when Adam Levine is a genuine singer?  With all of the fake idiots who do "music" nowadays, it's hard to come by good artists.  Given, I wish they would go back to the more laidback style of "Songs About Jane", but you get my point.  So Bioshock is going mainstream because people will like it and buy it...well that's good!  That gives Levine more money to make more awesome games!

  Another thing occurred to me.  People writing hate reviews for this game don't even give logical reasons behind their reviews.  Sure, it's a state of opinion, yeah I understand that.  But back it up to some degree, because if everything is supposed to be taken by opinion then why do we even have reviews in the first place?  VanOrd backs up his reviews with a lot of facts about the games.  He reviews them for what they are, and doesn't like to play favorites.  We learned that from RE6's review.  I'm not hating on that review, by the way.

  So when you write a review of this game, or you say something in the comments section of the actual review, please, think about what you're trying to say.  Think about the facts that you can back up your statements with, and actually do some research to learn something.  I'll admit, Dishonored looked a lot like Bioshock graphically.  Is that a bad thing?  NO!  And someone actually has the gall to say Infinite looked like Dishonored...which came AFTER Bioshock, which is Irrational's original work. 

  And the game isn't challenging?  Please, play it on a harder difficulty and then tell me the same thing.  Sure, people find games easy sometimes, but Bioshock 1 was really hard, and 2, in my opinion, is even harder.

  Now comes the money issue...they apparently spent a lot of money on advertising.  And people freaked out over the cover of the game.  Really?  That's the maturity level of this world?  We freak out over BOX ART?  C'mon.  And advertising actually takes quite a bit of money, and without advertising, a game or movie can flop because people don't know about it.  I want developers to be able to use every tool available to them to get their games out. 

  My main problem is this, ESPECIALLY with the gaming community:  People are too hypocritical.  This includes some reviewers I've seen as well, and not random reviewers you see on Gamespot.  I've seen people cry for a survival horror in RE6, but then in a review they cry about not having enough bullets.  I've seen people say that FF-XIII is horrible, and I ask how far they got into it, and they say "Oh, a few hours, got to where Serah turns into Crystal".  Really?  That's near the beginning!  And that's not even the hook!  FF-XIII really shines around chapter 6 or 7, then from then on it's amazing.  People cry that FF-XIII was too easy.  Yeah, right.  That game got so difficult in later chapters.  "Gears of War does nothing to innovate the TPS genre, but I love Uncharted!" Alright.  I love both games, but I can admit that Gears made the cover system FUN.  And yes, I love Uncharted, but it's a cover based TPS.  Sure, people can argue they're two different games or styles, but really, think about it.  Cover based....TPS....doesn't really get different except for the mood and designs of the 2 games.

  So what's the point of all of this?  Well, no point really.  I just wish people would open their minds a little bit.  Gay rights is still in contention, we still have racism in today's society, hypocrites seek more ears to envelope in their idiotic words, it's all here.  We just have to learn to....take things with a grain of salt.  When you review a game that's as succesful as Infinite, please, state why.  And not just that, state the "why" of the why.  Go into detail, go ahead and make comparisons to other games, but really, it's not that easy with a Shock game.  They have learned how to stand the test of time, and have learned how to set apart from the rest of the industry.  Maybe not in game play, but in atmosphere and story and emmersion, that's a yes.

  • Posted Mar 26, 2013 4:04 pm GMT
  • Category: Rant
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg

See Previous Blog Posts »