Are there any games that you have changed your opinion on over time?‎

Are there any games that you have changed your opinion on over time?‎

Plenty. Usually it’s either a factor of realizing that I was trying too hard to convince myself a game was good because I wanted to believe it was good (in the cases where my opinion worsens), or getting deeper into a game and realizing there is a lot of value to it that I wasn’t accessing before (when my opinion gets better).
I originally didn’t like fighting games. My thoughts on them from playing them were that you could just mash and win frequently even against fairly good players who had years of experience in the game. I thought that Smash Bros was superior because you actually had to think and move around, and a good fighting game AI just had to use the right move for the right range to always win, where smash AI would be much harder to develop. I believed this all the way up to high school. I didn’t like how attacking in fighting games would lock me in place, I didn’t like how you hit up to jump instead of having a separate jump button. I didn’t know shit about fighters. I had bought a few fighting games like guilty gear, king of fighters, SF2 on the virtual console, and only really liked Guilty Gear of them, because holy shit, I could mash buttons, occasionally use specials semi-strategically and the movement was awesome. Eventually my brother got a PS3, in searching for games to put on it, we got SF4, because it seemed like all that was available from the small selection. A friend challenged me to play it, so we both tried it out. Neither of us really got it, and my friend cheesed me with dhalsim’s long limbs or something. I reasoned that there had to be some reason people liked fighting games, I knew that people held huge tournaments like Evo, and I had seen evo moment #37 before, so I tried to figure out how the fuck that shit worked. I tried to understand how the hell combos were put together, and luckily had and internet friend who was into that stuff. I played netplay and got my ass kicked mercilessly, eventually starting to win, eventually starting to understand the logic behind all these different normal attacks I had. Learning that there actually was something of substance, that it was more than mashing or combo memorization, really flipped my opinion there.

I originally thought Mirror’s Edge was a kind of shallow but pretty looking game where you just follow the one or two paths forwards to get to the next part. Also that the levels were built in a way that makes it really irritating to find the path forwards (if you need a hint button, probably not built right) I never got that sense of flow that I expected from a movement game like this. It’s only chance that a friend challenged me to a speedrun race of it and I got into the game to beat him, because I was sick of losing in games he had an advantage in (and him refusing to play the games I might have an advantage in). Then of course when I stepped it up, he chose to play me in a ruleset where he still had the upper hand.

When I started Remember Me, I thought it was shit. Then as I got further in, it became clear there were a number of abilities, they all did different shit and many of them could be used to lesser or greater effect. So I decided it was a mediocre game instead of a totally shit one, because the abilities still weren’t great, they were the bare minimum of what a game should be doing at all. Better than Batman though.

I was kind of a bitch about darkstalkers and skullgirls at first, but I’ve gotten more into them as I understood their systems better too.

Now for the other side: Mad World I originally liked, but had an argument with someone over whether visual style really makes a game better or not, and they pointed out I liked mad world when it didn’t have much substance, and I reconsidered my opinion on it, because reflecting on what I did in the game, a lot of it was honestly repetitive, and the combat system wasn’t that great. It was more a presentation deal. I wanted to like the game because it came from the guys from Clover, had a unique visual style, nice music, and nice voice acting.

With No More Heroes I had a similar experience, only really realizing how shallow NMH’s gameplay was as I moved onto better action games. I liked the cutscenes and unique presentation more than my actual experience playing it.

Similar deal with Legend of Zelda, and Okami, as I realized that the puzzle shit didn’t really satisfy me, my favorite part was the pit of trials in wind waker/twilight princess. I wanted to buy into the hype since these were supposed to be legendary games. But I can envision ways these games could be done better now, that other games have done similar things better.

Deus Ex I reconsidered as I learned more about the game and thought over its actual systems and refined my perspective more on game design. It’s an amazingly intricate interconnected system, but holy shit is every directed action and skill test in the game boring.

DMC3 I’ve been reconsidering, because most of the enemies honestly suck. It’s not enough to totally dismiss it, but there’s maybe 3-4 good enemy types in the game that are differentiated from one another, not counting bosses. DMC4 is stronger on that front somehow. Needs stronger enemy aggression in both games though.

Probably others. I reconsider when there’s fair cause to do so. I don’t want to be a victim to consistency. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”

5 thoughts on “Are there any games that you have changed your opinion on over time?‎

  1. DJaeger July 25, 2016 / 3:27 pm

    Man, it is kinda sad that your initial thoughts on fighting games are actually the thoughts of most people before they look more into them. Most people think “meh, you just mash some buttons and do some combos” “everything you do hurts the opponent” “it’s only some punches and some kicks”. Two friends of mine literally told me they believe League of Legends is a deeper and more complex game than Street Fighter, saying the exact things I put in quotations. Needless to say, those fucktards hadn’t even properly touched Street Fighter before (I had played League for like 3 years, so I know my shit).
    It does feel annoying, especially when they won’t admit it even when they get their ass beat. Then I feel both happy and a dick when I taunt them on every mistake they make (like live commentary) while I beat their asses, then wave the 50 euros I made from the bet they lost (that they could beat me in at least one out of 20 games, no matter how). Well, at least I made 50 euros out of their stupidity.


    • Chris Wagar July 25, 2016 / 5:35 pm

      It’s hard to get it until you get it. It’s hard to see until you see. I’ve reserved judgment on 3d fighting games because I still don’t understand them. Remembering what it’s like to not understand 2d fighting games has been tough for me. This type of information accessibility is important, some games get weighed down by it. Nearly anyone can understand smash bros on a basic level, but understanding street fighter is hard.

      Also, daaaaaaamn, 1 out of 20 games. I got a 15 win streak with Alex while drunk on someone who was experienced recently, but I can’t believe they didn’t admit there’s something to it after losing 20 games in a row. They probably made up some excuse like you just know the combos, to which I typically start winning with just light punch or light kick.

      It’s hard to make people reconsider. Also, I love bets that appear skewed in other people’s favor, but you know you’ll win.


      • DJaeger July 26, 2016 / 3:11 pm

        I decided to play them on SFV, given that it would be easier for them to see the visuals, and possibly judge better. I taught them Ryu’s moveset, and played them with 6 different characters, including my main (Necalli), my secondary (Karin), my wannabe new main (Balrog), my old main (Ryu), and I chose two more to fill out specific playstyles (Alex, Nash). I did the 3 button challenge with Karin, which meant I was limited to 3 different buttons per round. I barely know any combos with Nash, so there’s that. I played them with a different style of Ryu for each round. I played a basic spacing game with Necalli (which was hard for me, mind you, since I am used to running in a lot :P). Same with Alex, which was easier because of better pokes.

        Who knows, they might have changed their opinion slightly, but they didn’t really show it. They just looked pissed when I got their 50.

        But I really wanted to ask you, what is your opinion on the matter? Which do you think is the more complex game, and which do you think is the deeper one? Is it just a situation of “apples vs. oranges” completely? I got some of my one notes on that (which I could share), but I would be happy to see your take on it.


        • Chris Wagar July 27, 2016 / 4:56 am

          I don’t play MOBAs. I don’t think it’s a completely apples to oranges situation, since my definition of depth basically exists to bridge differences across games and genres, however it’s still tricky to judge accurately since it’s such an unlike comparison.

          MOBAs have a lot of complexity due to their many many characters, but I’d hazard to guess that they’re lower on depth because the characters have less abilities and the abilities themselves are less flexible in function. It’s linear addition versus exponentiation. There’s something to be said for the complexity of teamplay and the many moving elements and I’m frankly not qualified enough to quantify that, though I’ve never been a fan of teamplay.

          In my heart of hearts I think fighting games are much deeper.

          But yeah, I’d love to see your onenote


          • DJaeger July 27, 2016 / 7:21 am

            I would like to point out that, having played quite a lot of both League and Dota, I think Dota is comparable to Street Fighter in terms of depth and complexity. I wouldn’t say that thing about League, at least not for the depth part. But anyway, here are my notes (although maybe a bit sloppy).
            -Much more stuff to think about at a constant basis in SF compared to League. Fast pace thinking of a lot of variables.
            -Character learning and matchups in SF take much more time to learn than whole comps in League, and they often require a lot of personal searching.
            -League has a much more distinct and easy to follow pace than the jerky, unruly pace of SF.
            -SF is simpler to the watcher who hasn’t played enough of the game. League is less watcher friendly for people who don’t play the game, however becomes simpler if you do. In SF, the reverse is true.
            -Mind games in SF are not visible to the viewer. More stuff “on the screen” in League, more stuff to think about at any second in SF.
            -The coach in professional League has the hardest job.
            -SF has much, much higher technical complexity (a.k.a execution, different techniques concerning stick/pad management).
            -League often has clear, set-in-stone choices (item paths and objectives included). Rarely is it a situation of choosing between more than two options, and usually not in a case of time pressure (nowhere near as much time pressure as in SF).
            -Defense in League is an easier task.
            -You can learn pretty much everything in League just by playing the game (it’s all “out there”). SF requires you to search by yourself deeply for the nuances of the game (correct spacing, effective ranges, plus frames, startups, setups, optimal combos for different ranges, hitconfirming, specific matchup strats, combinations of normal moves etc.)

            That’s pretty much it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s