Smogon's Top Video Games List - Stage 3 (Current Discussion: The vonRubric)

[Wikey]

I'm not really understanding why so many people are against music being weighted the same as gameplay and storyline. Just because you personally play with the sound off doesn't mean sound isn't a core piece of video games since the NES days. Not only does it create atmosphere good sound communicates information to the player. I think if you're playing a game like Contra III or Super Mario Bros. 3 without sound you're doing yourself a disservice.

I also want to know when the people who are saying sound isnt important started playing games because I have a feeling they're PS2 or younger for the most part.

 

[phoopes]

The rubric's criteria are excellent, but maybe dial back the bonus a bit. There is something to be said about a game being the whole package, but the equivalent of a full point bonus (on a five-point scale) to every category seems excessive to me, considering that in most of these games we will debate on, it looks as if we will assume that every category matters unless there are enough opinions otherwise. I don't know, to me a bonus of 0.5 or 0.6 just sounds more reasonable.

I actually think that up to a one-point bonus is fine. Some games have individual parts that would give them a low score. However, when these parts together, they make a wonderful gaming experience. Fielder gave an example in Dead Rising. When taking the averages of each category, the score it turned out wasn't great. However, it apparently was an excellent game (never played it myself, but I'll take his word for it) and deserved the full one point bonus.

 

[JimBob]

When you go out to buy a game, do you ask the sales rep how the music is before you decide to buy it? Do you go on youtube not to watch gameplay videos, but to preview the music? Maybe you guys just have a different point of view than I do, but music is not a make-or-break thing when I'm deciding if I want to play a game. Sure, a groovy soundtrack can lighten things up a little, or create atmosphere, but I'm not playing the game for that in most cases. I will admit, that there are exceptions, but as far as the games that I have played, music is just a fun distraction from the game. On the same level as an easter egg, if you will.

For the record, I started playing games with my neighbors, who had a playstation and N64. My first device was a Game Boy Color. So okay, I wasn't around for the NES/SNES days.

 

[WaterBomb]

I think with Music is it's important to a game, but it's not the REASON people play that game. Music is, by design, a support function to glue everything together. Different people choose different games for different reasons, but ultimately the music in each game is designed to be subtle, background and subconscious, not the most prominent variable.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Just because you personally play with the sound off doesn't mean sound isn't a core piece of video games since the NES days.

To be honest, I would say that is exactly what that means..

I also want to know when the people who are saying sound isnt important started playing games because I have a feeling they're PS2 or younger for the most part.

My first game was called Castle Adventure. You can play it here.

 

[Zacchaeus]

Like I said a while back, certain criteria are important for certain games while others aren't. If you're sitting around playing Battlefield or Call of Duty, you don't have the volume turned up to listen to the catchy tunes. You either have the volume on to hear pertinent information, or you have it off and listen to whatever the hell music you want. On the opposite end, when you play Geometry Wars, the music is just fantastic and definitely becomes an element of what makes the game amusing. So depending on whatever you play, it either is or isn't important but I wouldn't rate Call of Duty bad on the music scale, I just wouldn't rate it.

 

[Focus]

Just saying that I have bought games for their soundtracks. There are also otherwise mediocre-to-good games that are in my top 20 primarily because of their music (Pac Man World 2, Katamari Damacy, Beatles Rock Band [not really the same, but still!]). Bad music to me is just as damaging as bad graphics or wonky controls. However, I do admit that having bad music does not break an otherwise good game like bad controls would. It's just that great music can push a game into greatness. It's already given that the games on this list are top-caliber, so music should be considered on equal footing with the other qualities. We are judging the best of the best here.

 

[billymills]

Music doesn't detract from games unless you're forced to listen to it. There are a number of games where the music is really good and adds to the games, but a lot of games where I just end up tuning it out or muting it. Unless you are forced to listen to the game (voice commands etc.) then we should be perfectly able to argue for a N/A.

 

[Wikey]

To be honest, I would say that is exactly what that means..


My first game was called Castle Adventure. You can play it here.

If there was a small but vocal group of movie watchers that watched movies without the sound on would you feel the same way?

I did say, "for the most part."

 

[Mastadi]

If there was a small but vocal group of movie watchers that watched movies without the sound on would you feel the same way?

I did say, "for the most part."

In many cases, the 'group' of silent players isn't exactly small. Many games only have music because players are used to listening to something in the background. Think games where immersion is basically non-existent, such as arcade multiplayer shooters, sports or casual games. Many people play such games muting the in-game music and putting their own on instead. Additionally, it could easily be argued that a game such as FIFA has quite a good soundtrack while in fact it does not contribute to the gameplay experience at all, which is most important.

But quite honestly, if a game is expected or attempts to use music to enhance or create immersion, then it should be given a score. Sure, only a decent soundtrack will probably not make much of a difference - a great game will still be very enjoyable if it's music is just average. However, music is quite possibly one of the most easily remembered aspects if done well - many great games have great themes which are instantly recongised - and can really affect the mood of a game, with a good soundtrack possibly making a boss battle so much more epic and a dark dungeon so much more frightening. If a game fails to use that opportunity to make the gamer so much more immersed, then I think there's no reason why it shouldn't receive a lower aggregate score as a result of the middling soundtrack.

 

[vonFiedler]

I'm not sure.. When you say "multimedia art form" I think you are kinda pushing a personal notion of what a game ought to be. First and foremost we need to view games as games.

No, unless you are playing Zork multimedia is a fact. Since both music and visuals are art forms that have had thousands of years more time to be refined there is no excuse for half-assing these things. I don't want to hear the words background or wallpaper like they are the ideal, that is backwards.

Music doesn't detract from games unless you're forced to listen to it. There are a number of games where the music is really good and adds to the games, but a lot of games where I just end up tuning it out or muting it. Unless you are forced to listen to the game (voice commands etc.) then we should be perfectly able to argue for a N/A.

If the music is so bad that you have to turn it off how could you possibly vote N/A over a 1 or 2? This is clearly biased.

Keep in mind, game design is half of my rubric and music is 1/6. Video games doesn't exactly even have a history of underwhelming music like movies do these days, only in maybe the last decade has music took a turn for the worse and that deserves recognition not apathy.

 

[Manafii101]

Music is just as, if not more important than graphical quality. For example, the mario theme is one of the most universally well-known tunes of our time, akin to twinkle-twinkle little star. Yet who remembers the original graphics? It's created a lasting impact on our culture. Music determines the tenor and emotion of the game.

I would agree that games that have arbitrary music/sfx that don't contribute to the experience should be applicable for an N/A. But there aren't many games like that anyways so I don't think it's that much of an issue.

A more pressing concern for the rubric is the "fun-ness" of the game. Sure, Mario Kart 3DS might be "better" than Mario Kart DS in every way, but I personally prefered the snaking, weaving drift mechanics. That game feels more fun to me, much like some people prefer playing RBY instead of BW2. How can we objectively judge the content and system design?

 

[Wikey]

I think that would fall under von's bonus points system. Mario Kart DS would have low scores in each category but the whole would be greater than the sum of its parts.

 

[vonFiedler]

The bonus isn't a pity score or a bias allowance, it's for demonstrating that all elements work together towards one cohesive artwork.

Manafii you might just have to articulate better as to why you actually like one game more if you think it's inferior to another.

 

[phoopes]

Manafii you might just have to articulate better as to why you actually like one game more if you think it's inferior to another.

Well, I'd argue that just because you like a game more than another, it doesn't mean you should give that game a better score. For example, I like Majora's Mask slightly better than Ocarina of Time, but I'd still give OoT a better score. It's a true classic, and was innovative, and definitely deserves the better rating, despite my feelings about Majora's mask.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Ok, accepting we want a cold hard mathematical and micro- method of assessing games, which I am not a big fan of but whatever.. Here is how I prefer we do it.

Like, firstly, if we have NAs we have to worry about how we scale results according to those. I would prefer if we didnt have any NAs.

So I am going to look for terminology that can always be applied to a game. To do this I want to start with things that are vague enough.

So like, I am going to start with the concept of being a good game. This obviously is too vague to be useful. So, to specify that a bit more, I can say "how much do people like this game". However that is obviously still far to subjective.. There is a case to be made that a game might not be liked for reasons beyond the scope of what we are evaluating. Also people are too easily influenced by current fads, or probably even more so by nostalgia..

Basically we have to evaluate how much someone else likes this game. But I dont think we should disregard how much you like the game. Its a subjective list anyway, so for the first field I would like to have "how much I like it".

Then to look at how much someone else ought like the game, I would look at two things. The concept and the execution.

For example: scribblenauts 1, great concept, poor execution.

Though the concept has to also bear in mind the plausibility of executing effectively. I would argue that while scribblenauts had a great concept when you hear about it, in terms of producing a game it basically turned into "a really shit platformer where you write "jetpack, ladder, rope" at the start of every level". So I wouldnt actually give it a 5. But it sure sounded like a cool idea at the time anyway.

For the opposite example, hmm.. Perhaps I am not really the best person to pick this, but I would think a generic racing game, but with really excellent controls, maps, really realistic vehicle handling.. Something like that. The concept is completely unoriginal, but the gameplay is excellent. I think originality is strongly related to concept, but not completely.. There probably needs to be some spark of originality to it, but it isnt just "more original therefore higher score" Scribblenauts probably illustrated that.

To split up execution, I think there are a few ways you could go. I would probably say, gameplay and aesthetic would be the next step. Though now we are starting to get to the area where we might be introducing bias.. At this stage I think we are on safe enough ground though, all the bias I can think of is minimal, and really any rubrik will involve some bias. This is a level I am willing to accept..

I would be happy with a rating schema based on:
How much you liked it: /5
Concept: /5
Gameplay: /5
Aesthetic: /5

Anything more specific than this and I dont think I could really respect the outcomes.. If we are going to have subjectivity, I would prefer it to be at the voting level, than introduced before we even start..

 

[vonFiedler]

Basically we have to evaluate how much someone else likes this game. But I dont think we should disregard how much you like the game. Its a subjective list anyway, so for the first field I would like to have "how much I like it".

Anyone who wants to think like this always had the freedom to make their own list. This is also as you put it vague, people like bad games all the time even because they are bad.

Then to look at how much someone else ought like the game, I would look at two things. The concept and the execution.

For example: scribblenauts 1, great concept, poor execution.

Though the concept has to also bear in mind the plausibility of executing effectively. I would argue that while scribblenauts had a great concept when you hear about it, in terms of producing a game it basically turned into "a really shit platformer where you write "jetpack, ladder, rope" at the start of every level". So I wouldnt actually give it a 5. But it sure sounded like a cool idea at the time anyway.

For the opposite example, hmm.. Perhaps I am not really the best person to pick this, but I would think a generic racing game, but with really excellent controls, maps, really realistic vehicle handling.. Something like that. The concept is completely unoriginal, but the gameplay is excellent. I think originality is strongly related to concept, but not completely.. There probably needs to be some spark of originality to it, but it isnt just "more original therefore higher score" Scribblenauts probably illustrated that.

This has poor critical value. There are endless directors, writers, and game designers who you could pat on the back because they failed to bring their vision to life, but they failed. You might as well call this the "effort" grade which is bullshit too.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Uhh.. I think I must have very poorly explained what I meant.. Cause your criticism makes no sense to me, I will have to think on this.

I think what I was thinking was more or less analagous to your system design field.

A good concept is a good concept regardless of what hampers a game. If you have a 5 for concept, which, as I explained scribblenauts really ought not have and a 0 in every other category thats 5/20. A pretty pathetic score. This isnt about pats on the back it is about credit where it is due. A game that has a great idea poorly executed is a better game than a game with a shit idea poorly executed.

 

[smashlloyd20]

So...what else do we need to add to this? Honestly nobody has really given a viable alternative to the vonrubric...the only real complaints that people have been made have been by people that are annoyed that the sound of a game is one sixth of the rubric. I think what people need to keep in mind is that we are judging games based on how they were created (including music) and not how you play them. Music is a part of game development and we should treat it as such.

Kinda bump

 

[Arch]

So...what else do we need to add to this? Honestly nobody has really given a viable alternative to the vonrubric...the only real complaints that people have been made have been by people that are annoyed that the sound of a game is one sixth of the rubric. I think what people need to keep in mind is that we are judging games based on how they were created (including music) and not how you play them. Music is a part of game development and we should treat it as such.

Please give this man an award so we can move on.