Originally posted by dadudemonI'm not saying that a lot did, but I know some people, not many, who did that as well.
No one I know bought the game for the single player....I will rent the game eventually to play through the single player...but you are saying that a lot of people just bought the game for the single player?
It's just that so many, some on here as well, would gasp at the thought of someone buying it just for the Single Player.
I was actually thinking about buying Halo 1 the other month, to play the single player and catch up and eventually make it to Halo 3. Never could find it though and I'm not really caring that much anymore anyways.
Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....
Originally posted by SaTsuJiN
well I personally enjoyed going through the campaign on co-op.. but playing it single player woulda really been boring (IMO)
Right...I usually play the single player as co-op with one of my brothers...so really...I am not technically playing the "single player.." I should re-word that to campaign.
Originally posted by InnerRise
I'm not saying that a lot did, but I know some people, not many, who did that as well.It's just that so many, some on here as well, would gasp at the thought of someone buying it just for the Single Player.
I was actually thinking about buying Halo 1 the other month, to play the single player and catch up and eventually make it to Halo 3. Never could find it though and I'm not really caring that much anymore anyways.
Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....
I figured your comment was directed at the haters here and not really for me...I just thought that you knew something that I didn't...which is great in my book...I love learning new things.
Originally posted by InnerRise
I was actually thinking about buying Halo 1 the other month, to play the single player and catch up and eventually make it to Halo 3. Never could find it though and I'm not really caring that much anymore anyways.Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....
I think they have it downloadable on xbox live now
Originally posted by dadudemon
A good or bad game has a great deal to do with how the game sells. You are mixing your opinion up with the opinion of the masses. The argument is not about "a million people can't be wrong"...the argument is "millions of people can't be wrong". 6 months from now, what game will be the most played? Shouldn't that indicate which games are truly good games? A good game is not just gamer opinion...a good game is many factors1. How well the game sells at opening.
2. How well the game sells after 3 months.
3. How well the game continues to sell after 6 months and beyond.
4. How may people continue to play the game at release, three months and six months and beyond.
5. How well the game was reviewed and rated by the publisher before release.
6. How well the game was rated by gaming magazines/websites.
7. How well the game was reviewed and rated by the actual gamers.
8. How marketable the game is on the Internet and TV and various other advertising methods.
9. How well the game is hyped in the underground and in the media.Do you notice anything significant about all of those variables? Right...they all point towards making money. Sure, any one category can be negative and it not cause the game to fail...but fail at more than just one category and the game could fail as far as "money" is concerned...which is really the way a game gets published to begin with.
Did KOTOR deserve game of the year? Hell yes! It didn't have the best graphics...it didn't have the best advertisement...it didn't sell a ridiculous number of games at opening...but IN MY OPINION, it was game of the year for that year.
All of the Halo games are excellent as far as those above variables go...they are not perfect..but they are excellent games, none the less...that much cannot be denied...which is my point. People are entitled to their opinion....I don't really think Halo is all that great but I do recognize its excellence in the gaming community.
FYI...I really only play the Halo games for the single player. teehee 😄
No, I'm not mixing up my opinion with anyone elses. Sales, and popularity in general is not a good basis for an argument when discussing something's quality. This is according to the rules of logic. Basing an argument on sales or popularity in regards to quality is committing the logical fallacy of appeal to popularity. A million people CAN be wrong, MILLIONS of people can be wrong as well. Just because something is loved by millions of people doesn't mean it's inherently good, as well as the opposite being true. People can like shit.
Almost all of those variables you mentioned is based purely on popularity and thus again, not good basis for an argument about the quality of something.
A good argument about the quality would be stuff that's, you know, in the game (Level design, AI, Story, Graphics, Sound, and so on). Not about how the game was marketed or how popular it is. Popularity/Money and quality have nothing to do with eachother.
You could say Halo is great because the AI is outstanding and it makes the battles intense and fun and never repetitive, that would be a fine argument to make. Saying Halo is great because it makes money and sold a lot is not, as it has nothing to do directly with the actual game or gameplay.
Originally posted by BackFireI agree in some ways but you can not deny how well it is doing.
No, I'm not mixing up my opinion with anyone elses. Sales, and popularity in general is not a good basis for an argument when discussing something's quality. This is according to the rules of logic. Basing an argument on sales or popularity in regards to quality is committing the logical fallacy of appeal to popularity. A million people CAN be wrong, MILLIONS of people can be wrong as well. Just because something is loved by millions of people doesn't mean it's inherently good, as well as the opposite being true. People can like shit.Almost all of those variables you mentioned is based purely on popularity and thus again, not good basis for an argument about the quality of something.
A good argument about the quality would be stuff that's, you know, in the game (Level design, AI, Story, Graphics, Sound, and so on). Not about how the game was marketed or how popular it is. Popularity/Money and quality have nothing to do with eachother.
You could say Halo is great because the AI is outstanding and it makes the battles intense and fun and never repetitive, that would be a fine argument to make. Saying Halo is great because it makes money and sold a lot is not, as it has nothing to do directly with the actual game or gameplay.
Millions of people can be wrong but then again odds are they must find something they like. You just don't have that many people playing a game if the game got it wrong.
Also if you are gonna judge the quality of the game you also have to take into account not only the surface stuff but you've got to judge its purpose.
Let me put it this way. Games are made for a purpose. They are made to make money. Generally things don't do well unless they have good quality. It's needed for the purpose to be met. So how come Halo 3 seems to have done so well so far if it is a poor game game. I'm not saying you said it was but to sit back and say that sale figures and how many people are playing has no determining factor on its I think is simply removing a key factor.
Now I'm not saying Halo 3 is the best game ever but you can not sit there and dent that as an entertainment based product it hasn't exactly fallen face first. That does count for something you can not deny that it doesn't.
Look, Bioshock deserved a nomination for GOTY, no questions. That game kicked major ass. I haven't played Mass Effect so I cant say weather or not it deserves a spot. IMO Call of Duty 4 deserves a spot as it is the best FPS I've played in a good while, and its certainly WAY better then Halo 3 in just about every way. Hell even COD4's multiplayer is better then Halo 3's. Halo 1 was just an alright game, Halo 2 was admittedly a great game for its time and did deserve praise and notice, Halo 3 however literally WAS Halo 2 with the same multiplayer, basically the same graphics (with some noticeable improvements of course) and, what IMO, is a half-assed story that was not well executed throughout the entire trilogy. Halo 3 was not an amazing game at all, it does not deserve a nomination for GOTY. Mario Galaxy on the other hand is the second highest rated game of all time now and the best game that I (and apparently many many others) have played in probably 10 years. How does it not even get a nomination?
Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))Maybe because there are a lot of others out there, if not more, who don't feel the same way.
Mario Galaxy on the other hand is the second highest rated game of all time now and the best game that I (and apparently many many others) have played in probably 10 years. How does it not even get a nomination?
Not to mention that Mario only appeals to certain gamers.
Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....
The same can be said of any game. That's not the point of awards however. The point is to acknowledge all the best games regardless of personal choice, despite what most argue the "goodness" of a video game is not as subjective as most would have you believe, it can be measured to some degree, and it has been, and Mario stands as the second greatest game ever made. Will everyone agree? No, no one ever can, in anything, not just video games.. but That's not the point. How good a game is is not all opinion.
Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
The same can be said of any game. That's not the point of awards however. The point is to acknowledge all the best games regardless of personal choice, despite what most argue the "goodness" of a video game is not as subjective as most would have you believe, it can be measured to some degree, and it has been, and Mario stands as the second greatest game ever made. Will everyone agree? No, no one ever can, in anything, not just video games.. but That's not the point. How good a game is is not all opinion.
Well, really, all of this does boil down to nothing but opinion. Mario is the second-highest rated game. How does it have that title? Because of the reviews. What are reviews? Nothing more than opinions.
The only thing about how good a game is that is not down to opinion is the technical stuff - graphics and that sort of thing. But story, gameplay, controls, all of that...nothing but opinion.
Originally posted by BackFire
No, I'm not mixing up my opinion with anyone elses. Sales, and popularity in general is not a good basis for an argument when discussing something's quality. This is according to the rules of logic. Basing an argument on sales or popularity in regards to quality is committing the logical fallacy of appeal to popularity. A million people CAN be wrong, MILLIONS of people can be wrong as well. Just because something is loved by millions of people doesn't mean it's inherently good, as well as the opposite being true. People can like shit.Almost all of those variables you mentioned is based purely on popularity and thus again, not good basis for an argument about the quality of something.
A good argument about the quality would be stuff that's, you know, in the game (Level design, AI, Story, Graphics, Sound, and so on). Not about how the game was marketed or how popular it is. Popularity/Money and quality have nothing to do with eachother.
You could say Halo is great because the AI is outstanding and it makes the battles intense and fun and never repetitive, that would be a fine argument to make. Saying Halo is great because it makes money and sold a lot is not, as it has nothing to do directly with the actual game or gameplay.
I think we are not arguing the same the, exactly. You are arguing red delicious apples and I am arguing granny smith apples...no doubt.
The game (Halo 3) IS an excellent game by almost any standards...read that again...ANY standard. Things the game does well: Lighting, complexity of sound, animation, bugginess or rather the lack thereof, replay-ability, campaign story, and the fun factor is off the charts. Those are all quality aspects of a game...and guess what...those all go back to selling. The graphics are not ground breaking but they are pretty good. (This is relative to other current games.)
Have you played this game with a nice 5.1 surround sound setup?
The game is of the highest quality of current generations games...it isn't the best in every category and it really isn't the best all around either...but the replay-ability in its multiplayer sets it a whole head and shoulders above the competition and that is why it is so successful.
You say that my logic is flawed...but your logic is actually flawed from it onset. Let me explain why:
Quality is NOT an objective term...it is subjective to both the users and the purpose of application. You do realize that for the purposes of quality, Halo 3 is of the top tier, don't you? (That isn't a rhetorical question and I am not patronizing you with it either.)
My logic would be flawed if indeed, I said somewhere that the quality is objective -- I didn't. I simply said that basing an argument about the quality on only popularity and sales is a bad argument, which it is as it commits a fallacy. My logic is fine, since again, I never claimed quality was objective, did I?
Yes, I Halo 3 is good, I think all of the Halo games are good, just not hugely great or excellent. They are solid, yet generic shooters. Halo 3 is the best one, I think, but it still has some rather large flaws that keep it from sheer excellence -- The level design still isn't great, though it's definitely better than the others. There is still backtracking that occurs for no reason other than developer laziness. And the there is no excuse for the aliasing in the game. Also the story was lacking, and the tone of the entire game felt off -- this is a world that's been ravaged by war, there should logically be an air of desperation permiating through the entire game. Yet, whenever your AI companions open their mouths they spout some silly 'funny' shit. The despair, that is even suggested in the commercials, is never even close to being realized in the game. The world just doesn't feel like one that's been ravaged by war. Also the second to last level is one of the most embarrassingly bad levels I've played in a Triple A title, it was shamefully lousy and boring and frustrating and repetitive.
Originally posted by BackFire
My logic would be flawed if indeed, I said somewhere that the quality is objective -- I didn't. I simply said that basing an argument about the quality on only popularity and sales is a bad argument, which it is as it commits a fallacy. My logic is fine, since again, I never claimed quality was objective, did I?
But do you have to out rightly or even indirectly say your opinion about this is objective when from the onset, everything you are presenting is subjective in an extremely subjective environment? In other words, you are trying to pass off a subjective argument about quality as being fact or "this is the way it is because its logical".
What is your position? That the game does not deserve its top spot on the sales charts? My position is that the game doesn't suck because record numbers of people bought and are still playin the game.
Originally posted by BackFire
My position is simply this:The game is good, great in some ways, but not as a whole, in my opinion. Over rated.
Also, sales and popularity are NEVER a good basis for an argument when discussing quality, as quality and success don't necessarily have to do with one another.
I agree with most of what you said except for a few words that makes a world of difference....
Here is my take on what you said...
"Also, sales and popularity are [usually] a good basis for an argument when discussing quality, as quality and success don't necessarily have to do with one another [but are almost interchangeable, especially when it comes to video games]."
I think we differ slightly on how a game is looked at...even if I don't like a game, I will stall call it a good/great game if it truly is a good/great game to the majority. I also view games from two perspectives...as a gamer and as a publisher. I try to see the awesomeness that a game has as it appeals to my "hardcore gamer" personality and I try to view the game as professional critic/publisher. (Meaning, I try to view that game as a product rather than just a source of fun.)
I see Halo 3 as the epitome of video game marketing coupled with the best multiplayer setup available to the current gamer demand. You can talk about quality all you want...as long as Bungie is able to have a different definition of quality, millions of gamers can be happy with their products.
Honestly, I don't think yours and my opinion on the quality of a video game differ, from our gamer perspectives...in fact, I think I have just of strict standards, if not higher, than you do, when it comes to the quality of a video game.