About The Worst Game Thread

[ginsengsamurai]

Hey everyone...
The new guy here. I was just eating Guacamole flavored tortilla chips while reading through the many pages of the Worst MMO Game thread and found that I have to make my own comment about all of it.

First, no game sucks if at least one person likes it, and if there is one person who likes it, then there will most likely be others who like it too.

Second, graphics do not make up the overall rating of a game. Nor does sound, music, and story. Individual elements don't stand on their own. A great game has a bit of everything, compromising on the fact that a game has to meet the current most-common standards of PC's on the market for the last two years up to six months in advance.

Third, what solidifies the greatness of a game on top of the said elements in #2, is gameplay structure and gameplay flow.

Fourth and lastly, personal preferences in graphical style, gameplay style, and overall theme is obviously personal style. So with that said, just because a game does not fit your personal style, it doesn't mean that the game sucks.

For example, the most common argument for Runescape that it sucks are the graphics and repetitive mouse clicking. Actually, though the graphics are outdated even for a Java-based game, the repetitive mouse clicking is prominant in every single MMO, except say Maplestory and the like. The mouse control is the single-most used tool for computers of all types used in the modern world. Runescape still caters to a huge range of players, even if their customer support sucks ***, even if their graphics engine is outdated, even if the game itself is no longer as 'fresh' as it once was when it first came out.

Another example is World of Warcraft. The most common 'problem' that people rate WoW down are the graphics. It's 'too' cartoony. Again, this is personal preference. If you haven't noticed already, the entire game is based around a fictional mythical storyline. The virtual 3D world itself was deliberatly created centred on it being more cartoony than other games, BUT the difference between WoW and say Ryzom, Pristontales, and a whole bunch of other hack and slash type of games, is that WoW actually has a massive range of things one would rate it to be one of the greatest games ever created.

First, it has a beautiful world, of all types of environments, weather, and moving interactive NPC's. It has towns, cities, fortresses, and a whole slew of camps and places. It has a skill system that is reflective of where you may find ingredients and further your training around the world. If has not only the usual kill X monster or collect X item type of quests, BUT it also contains quests that need character to character or auction house interactions. It includes such event quests like riding a ram during brewfest, delivering packages, finding candy for orphans, encouraging players to set foot in undiscovered lands by placing quest givers, fish and animals (for skill training or ingredients), and flight paths all over the globe and beyond.

In short, WoW may not look realistic like Guild Wars nor nearly as graphically intense, but WoW has a great gameplay structure and flow.

Let's take another example: Star Wars Galaxies. Personally, this game didn't do very much for me, and I rated this one down. Why? The idea was sound. I actually paid to play this game beyond the trial. I was a huge fan of the Tie Fighter and KoToR series, so I was biased when I chose to play and pay for the game. The problem with SWG was the physics behind the game. The graphics were also outdated, and the quests were hard to keep track of. There was basically no player community. Customer support was hardly around and they never took the liberty in addressing any issues except point me to the forums.

Maplestory: it's a style of gameplay I don't quite find enjoyable, but I won't rate it down because of that. My cousins seem to love it. It's easy for them, straight forward, and colourful, and they seem to love bothering me to buy them Nexon Cash for in-game costumes and such. Waste of money, but whatever makes them happy.

Anyway, the list goes on. In the case of SWG, the game is bad because of the missing and 'broken' elements, but games like RS, WoW, GW, and Eve are really still based around person style and preference. Mind you, RS should really update their graphics engine.

/rant over

[Daigotsu]

*applauds* Well put. You, sir, deserve some some chocolate.

[AmbushMartyr]

Well put and add +1 to rep for this post! Well said, and you my friend are exactly right, wish more could see that also!

[samthelegend]

Hey everyone...
The new guy here. I was just eating Guacamole flavored tortilla chips while reading through the many pages of the Worst MMO Game thread and found that I have to make my own comment about all of it.

First, no game sucks if at least one person likes it, and if there is one person who likes it, then there will most likely be others who like it too.

Second, graphics do not make up the overall rating of a game. Nor does sound, music, and story. Individual elements don't stand on their own. A great game has a bit of everything, compromising on the fact that a game has to meet the current most-common standards of PC's on the market for the last two years up to six months in advance.

Third, what solidifies the greatness of a game on top of the said elements in #2, is gameplay structure and gameplay flow.

Fourth and lastly, personal preferences in graphical style, gameplay style, and overall theme is obviously personal style. So with that said, just because a game does not fit your personal style, it doesn't mean that the game sucks.

For example, the most common argument for Runescape that it sucks are the graphics and repetitive mouse clicking. Actually, though the graphics are outdated even for a Java-based game, the repetitive mouse clicking is prominant in every single MMO, except say Maplestory and the like. The mouse control is the single-most used tool for computers of all types used in the modern world. Runescape still caters to a huge range of players, even if their customer support sucks ***, even if their graphics engine is outdated, even if the game itself is no longer as 'fresh' as it once was when it first came out.

Another example is World of Warcraft. The most common 'problem' that people rate WoW down are the graphics. It's 'too' cartoony. Again, this is personal preference. If you haven't noticed already, the entire game is based around a fictional mythical storyline. The virtual 3D world itself was deliberatly created centred on it being more cartoony than other games, BUT the difference between WoW and say Ryzom, Pristontales, and a whole bunch of other hack and slash type of games, is that WoW actually has a massive range of things one would rate it to be one of the greatest games ever created.

First, it has a beautiful world, of all types of environments, weather, and moving interactive NPC's. It has towns, cities, fortresses, and a whole slew of camps and places. It has a skill system that is reflective of where you may find ingredients and further your training around the world. If has not only the usual kill X monster or collect X item type of quests, BUT it also contains quests that need character to character or auction house interactions. It includes such event quests like riding a ram during brewfest, delivering packages, finding candy for orphans, encouraging players to set foot in undiscovered lands by placing quest givers, fish and animals (for skill training or ingredients), and flight paths all over the globe and beyond.

In short, WoW may not look realistic like Guild Wars nor nearly as graphically intense, but WoW has a great gameplay structure and flow.

Let's take another example: Star Wars Galaxies. Personally, this game didn't do very much for me, and I rated this one down. Why? The idea was sound. I actually paid to play this game beyond the trial. I was a huge fan of the Tie Fighter and KoToR series, so I was biased when I chose to play and pay for the game. The problem with SWG was the physics behind the game. The graphics were also outdated, and the quests were hard to keep track of. There was basically no player community. Customer support was hardly around and they never took the liberty in addressing any issues except point me to the forums.

Maplestory: it's a style of gameplay I don't quite find enjoyable, but I won't rate it down because of that. My cousins seem to love it. It's easy for them, straight forward, and colourful, and they seem to love bothering me to buy them Nexon Cash for in-game costumes and such. Waste of money, but whatever makes them happy.

Anyway, the list goes on. In the case of SWG, the game is bad because of the missing and 'broken' elements, but games like RS, WoW, GW, and Eve are really still based around person style and preference. Mind you, RS should really update their graphics engine.
/rant over

isnt that a bit hipocrtical? considering at the beginning of your thread u stated no game is bad? if your gunna state an arguement at least stick to your own points that you made.

[Cortaal]

This may sound a little mean, but you have a lot of time on your hands to type out that much, but the fact that you can voice your own opinion in such a way is pretty cool.

[ginsengsamurai]

@Daigotsu & AmbushMartyr: Thank you. Hot chocolate is good. ^_^

@Samthelegend: No game is bad based on personal preference. If at least one person likes it, then there are usually others who like it as well. However, if you've read, I've also layed out a criteria for a game to be good. If a game doesn't have or is missing or have those elements broken, then that game usually would be rated down. Hence in the example of Star Wars Galaxies, it has enough broken and enough missing elements to make it a bad game.

The point of my thread/message was to defend such games that are missing or has one or two elements that are 'broken' like Runescape. Its graphics is the biggest attraction killer, but the game is still a good game because it has other elements that combined, makes it a fun game. Like World of Warcraft, where it's graphical style has always been cartoony since the days of Warcraft: Orcs and Humans the RTS.


The problem with SWG was the physics behind the game. The graphics were also outdated, and the quests were hard to keep track of. There was basically no player community. Customer support was hardly around and they never took the liberty in addressing any issues except point me to the forums.

So as far as hypocritical goes, you have to look at the depth of context, rather than at face-value. I *am* sticking to my statements. You just simply fail to understand the point. Did you read and understand the FOUR points I gave at the start of my thread? Maybe I should give you a full review of SWG, or rather, point you at the various review boards around the net that give a thumbs down rating of SWG and why it's not a good game?

By the way, next time when you want to quote me, better to just quote the bit you want, rather than quote the entire thing. It makes the thread list not so cluttered.

Come to think of it, there is still one point to be made about SWG, is that there is still a fan following of it. Regardless, it's a broken game that should have been fixed a long time ago. It has been out for years, and though they might be adding new content every now and then, the current problems and issues have not been addressed at all.

@Cortaal: hehe, thanks. It's actually not that much when the thought is already there. I used to write articles and reviews for games years ago, so stuff like this is naturally 'quick' and easy. 8]