Support NeoGAF

[Spiritreaver]

No need to write anything substantial. Hell, no need for complete sentences.

Kingdom Hearts = 88% Gamerankings score + more than 2 million copies sold = fucking awesome game and you are wrong if you don't like it

Hey hey now, don't get me into this. But if I must comment, review scores and sales numbers won't win her over.

 

[Speevy]

Will Wright is director/lead designer for The Sims. The guy you are quoting is only in charge of porting someone else's game to consoles. Not to mention that he isn't exactly going to insult Animal Crossing and risk upsetting the audience for his game (since there's a lot of crossover between the two).

My point stands. Aren't developers part of picking of the AIAS awards?

If people who are experienced with designing games on a daily basis think AC is at the very least a game and at the very most a very good game, that's credible to me, whether or not you personally agree with it. (and you're certainly entitled to do so)

 

[Amir0x]

You know. If you look up 'game' at dictionary.com, you get a SLEW of definitions. I didn't bother to browse them all, but allow me to copy and paste the very first definition that shows up:

Quote:
1. An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime: party games; word games.

In the broadest sense of the word, I see no requirements listed, such as virtual mortality or even strategy. I own Animal Crossing, and played it daily for a period of a month. I haven't touched it since. It's not my favorite game. It's not the best game this gen. It's not the best game for the Cube. But I did find that it provided entertainment and amusement for a month.

I'm not going to argue with you that it somehow does have deep (or any) strategy, or even a solid system of punishments and rewards. But I WILL argue with you that it is a game. And even a decent one, imho. Quality is totally subjective, of course. But one thing that all of the awards and sales and communities does show is that I'm not alone in thinking that it was an amusing and entertaining activity.

That was a very good post btw, Mejilan.

Oh, I certainly understand that Animal Crossing provides amusement/entertainment for people. What I am saying, and what I am tried to state clearly since the start, is that since Animal Crossing has no discernable gameplay it is not something I can enjoy or hold in high regard since I cannot enjoy games without gameplay or even a modicum of strategy/challenge.

I personally would say that Animal Crossing is a game in the end, but it's just not one I hold in high regard. I respect others right to hold it in high regard, but obviously I'm debating it because I always find it interesting that anyone enjoyed AC. I guess I find it interesting in the same way that I find someone who enjoys Matrix Revolutions interesting.

 

[Spiritreaver]

That was a very good post btw, Mejilan.

Oh, I certainly understand that Animal Crossing provides amusement/entertainment for people. What I am saying, and what I am tried to state clearly since the start, is that since Animal Crossing has no discernable gameplay it is not something I can enjoy or hold in high regard since I cannot enjoy games without gameplay or even a modicum of strategy/challenge.

I personally would say that Animal Crossing is a game in the end, but it's just not one I hold in high regard. I respect others right to hold it in high regard, but obviously I'm debating it because I always find it interesting that anyone enjoyed AC. I guess I find it interesting in the same way that I find someone who enjoys Matrix Revolutions interesting.

I hate to go off on a tangent for a second, but why can't you be like this in the chat? It's much more understandable when you argue like this rather than stand strong to your own opinion and insult everyone else. I think more people could honestly stand this from you than what you've done in the past.

 

[Mejilan]

Thank you. I've been reading through all of your posts, and Speevy's, and others' here, and to be totally honest, I don't really disagree with you. I'm an admitted Nintendo fan, though not exclusively so, and most of their games last me YEARS. I still find myself occasionally replaying titles like Ocarina of Time, Super Metroid, and countless others. Animal Crossing is one I'll likely never play again. Not on the Cube, anyway. If the game shows up on the DS with a enough improvements and a working online functionality (the card-swapping method of "visiting" other players' villages was cool, but unfortunately limited), it can certainly be something special.

I guess my only problem with your posts is that you always seem to end on some note or with some qualifiter that seems purposefully insulting to those that do enjoy the game, and perhaps can't find ways to support it as eloquently as you can trash it. To each their own, but I hope you aren't dragging out the argument for the arguments sake... It was amusing at times, but getting tired.

You know... those puppies ARE cute.

 

[Amir0x]

I hate to go off on a tangent for a second, but why can't you be like this in the chat? It's much more understandable when you argue like this rather than stand strong to your own opinion and insult everyone else. I think more people could honestly stand this from you than what you've done in the past.

I think you miss the parts in the chat where I say "I respect your right to like X, but I just strongly disagree with it." I've done this before, but I think the perception is much different when you're talking in real time, since it seems much more fast paced and forceful

 

[Spiritreaver]

I think you miss the parts in the chat where I say "I respect your right to like X, but I just strongly disagree with it." I've done this before, but I think the perception is much different when you're talking in real time, since it seems much more fast paced and forceful

*shrugs* Perhaps you're right, I think that posts also give you a little more time for extra thought and comprehension for the writer and reader. Anyways, I'll cut this off here, but expect a PM here in a bit.

 

[Amir0x]

Thank you. I've been reading through all of your posts, and Speevy's, and others' here, and to be totally honest, I don't really disagree with you. I'm an admitted Nintendo fan, though not exclusively so, and most of their games last me YEARS. I still find myself occasionally replaying titles like Ocarina of Time, Super Metroid, and countless others. Animal Crossing is one I'll likely never play again. Not on the Cube, anyway. If the game shows up on the DS with a enough improvements and a working online functionality (the card-swapping method of "visiting" other players' villages was cool, but unfortunately limited), it can certainly be something special.

I guess my only problem with your posts is that you always seem to end on some note or with some qualifiter that seems purposefully insulting to those that do enjoy the game, and perhaps can't find ways to support it as eloquently as you can trash it. To each their own, but I hope you aren't dragging out the argument for the arguments sake... It was amusing at times, but getting tired.

You know... those puppies ARE cute.

Heh. Yeah, I do get a tad bit out of hand. But, for future reference, I hold no ill will toward olimario or Speevy or anyone else. As you get to know me, you'll realize that in debates I'm just a forceful, opinionated person who is a bit crass in the way he discusses his views. If you don't take it personally, we'll get a long a whole lot better because I can tell you nothing I say in a debate is meant to be taken personally.

Anyway, yeah, this argument IS getting old.

And the puppies ARE uber cute. SO CUTE I WANT TO RIP THEM OUT OF THE SCREEN AND REALLY TOUCH THEM!

 

[border]

In the broadest sense of the word, I see no requirements listed, such as virtual mortality or even strategy.

Well all you did was pick out the most ridiculously broad definition that you could. There are plenty of others that deal with rules, competitions, consequences, etc. If this all it takes for something to be a game is amusement/entertainment, then the following things are now games:

reading a book, masturbating, drawing doodles, talking on the telephone, watching a DVD, going to a rock concert, smoking pot

I think it's kind of daunting to define exactly what a game is, but I would say that yes, it is (for most people) linked to an activity that has some kind of intellectual/physical challenge, and there is some element of winning and losing. Either you beat the game or the game beats you; either you beat an opponent at the game or he beats you.

Playing solitaire is a game. Having someone deal you a bunch of cards so you can collect and inspect them is not.

 

[xsarien]

My point stands. Aren't developers part of picking of the AIAS awards?

If people who are experienced with designing games on a daily basis think AC is at the very least a game and at the very most a very good game, that's credible to me, whether or not you personally agree with it. (and you're certainly entitled to do so)

There are a lot of people out there that can technically call themselves developers. I'm in the camp of people who were never really enamored with AC, but I don't really chide people if they get a kick out of it, nor am I blind to the ramifications of it going online. Different strokes, you know? Perpetual games like The Sims, any given MMORPG, and AC just seem fundamentally futile to me; there's no sense of a final goal. You can't truly beat them. But some people enjoy them, and more power to them. Just don't tell me that they're anything revolutionary right now, because they're not. They've been around since the dawn of the original Sim City, if not earlier.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'd rather really clean up my real home rather than waste time in a "game" cleaning up my virtual one.

 

[Amir0x]

Playing solitaire is a game. Having someone deal you a bunch of cards so you can collect and inspect them is not.

I really like this analogy.

I'm keeping it.

 

[Speevy]

Playing solitaire is a game. Having someone deal you a bunch of cards so you can collect and inspect them is not.

What if you gain a sense of pride by having the best cards? Would it make a difference if the best cards had the word "You are the winner!" on them? Kind of a stupid line to draw.

 

[pilonv1]

It's nowhere near as stupid as the comment you just made.

 

[border]

I'm not sure where to fit perpetual games into everything either. Everquest has competitive elements, but there is no ultimate victory. I generally find stuff like that anti-game-ish. There's just this insane trance of illogic that people get drawn into for days, weeks, or years. Witness the Phantasy Star Online conundrum:

Q: Why are you trying to kill monsters?
A: So I can score awesome loot!
Q: Why do you want awesome loot?
A: So I can kill more monsters more quickly and level up!
Q: Why do you want to level up?
A: So I can score more awesome loot!
Q: Why do you want awesome loot?
A: So I can kill more monsters....
(repeats into infinity)

It's essentially the same mentality for stuff like Gran Turismo or Pokemon or MMO games.

The mark of the anti-game is that you do get sucked into this self-perpetuating logic for some time, but then eventually you break out of the spell and it dawns on you that you were doing something ultimately pointless and unsatisfying....then you never touch the game again.

 

[Drinky Crow]

At what point in the non-game of Animal Crossing do you do the equivalent
Hell, even you IMPLICITLY acknowledge that a game must have a victory condition with that analogy.

In Everquest, your character statistics improve and allow you to conquer more difficult areas -- you have discrete goals measured algorithimically and to which feedback i clearly offered. Every level is a victory condition. On top of that, the game has quests which are very easy to fail. Everquest has many non-game elements, but it finds a compromise between aimless activity and actual mechanics.

In Animal Crossing, the items you collect do nothing but accumulate. Animal Crossing has more in common with customizing your desktop than it does with The Sims or Everquest.

 

[Speevy]

At what point in the non-game of Animal Crossing do you do the equivalent of drawing a card that says "You Win!"

Hell, even you IMPLICITLY acknowledge that a game must have a victory condition with that analogy.

Okay, fully built house, perfect town/feng shui.

There's even a monument to me out by the train station.

Animal Crossing is a game.

 

[xsarien]

I'm not sure where to fit perpetual games into everything either. Everquest has competitive elements, but there is no ultimate victory. I generally find stuff like that anti-game-ish.

Hang on...

:: marks the calendar ::

We're agreeing on something, I want to note the occasion. Please continue.

 

[Littleberu]

At what point in the non-game of Animal Crossing do you do the equivalent
Hell, even you IMPLICITLY acknowledge that a game must have a victory condition with that analogy.

In Everquest, your character statistics improve and allow you to conquer more difficult areas -- you have discrete goals measured algorithimically and to which feedback i clearly offered. Every level is a victory condition. On top of that, the game has quests which are very easy to fail. Everquest has many non-game elements, but it finds a compromise between aimless activity and actual mechanics.

In Animal Crossing, the items you collect do nothing but accumulate. Animal Crossing has more in common with customizing your desktop than it does with The Sims or Everquest.

You can't win in Everquest though. Because it's an "ever changing quest".

 

[Drinky Crow]

I don't disagree with that, and that's because the game targets persistent immersion over meaningful mechanics. The two components aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but shitty game developers sure do a good job trying to paint them that way.

 

[Shoryuken]

This argument is pretty dumb. Here's a definition of a game from dictionary.com:

1.An activity providing entertainment or amusement


There doesn't necessarily have to be a point or a goal (although obviously there can be) to an activity to be considered a game. So in short Animal Crossing is a game. Now whether or not it's a good game, well that's entirely subjective.Dictionary.com

 

[border]

What if you gain a sense of pride by having the best cards? Would it make a difference if the best cards had the word "You are the winner!" on them? Kind of a stupid line to draw.

Well first, I was talking about a standard deck of playing cards (hearts, clubs, spades, etc).....nothing special or custom.

If you gain a sense of pride in your card collection, it's still not a game I don't think. Certainly no more of a game than collecting DVDs or baseball cards or whatnot. Magic: The Gathering obviously straddles the line since it's collectible but also a legitimate game. I don't see what the sense of pride might do to make it a game, though. If someone puts new rims on his car and thus finds new pride in his Honda, is he playing a game?

If a card says "You are the winner" and you stop playing when you receive that card, then it could be a game. Do you get to draw as many cards as you want or is there a limit? If you can just draw to infinity then you are a guaranteed winner everytime, and that might make it a non-game, or perhaps a "false game" (something that has the appearance of chance or challenge, but is really fixed).

 

[Drinky Crow]

And as border pointed out, by that idiomatic and broad definition, masturbation is a game. Drinking coffee is a game. Reading a book is a game. And, yes, by that definition, Animal Crossing is a game.

 

[Shoryuken]

And as border pointed out, by that idiomatic and broad definition, masturbation is a game. Drinking coffee is a game. Reading a book is a game. And, yes, by that definition, Animal Crossing is a game.

I believe that's the whole point. You can make a game out of pretty much anything. To try to imply that Animal Crossing is not a game is really fishing.

 

[Mejilan]

Well all you did was pick out the most ridiculously broad definition that you could. There are plenty of others that deal with rules, competitions, consequences, etc. If this all it takes for something to be a game is amusement/entertainment, then the following things are now games:

reading a book, masturbating, drawing doodles, talking on the telephone, watching a DVD, going to a rock concert, smoking pot

I think it's kind of daunting to define exactly what a game is, but I would say that yes, it is (for most people) linked to an activity that has some kind of intellectual/physical challenge, and there is some element of winning and losing. Either you beat the game or the game beats you; either you beat an opponent at the game or he beats you.

Playing solitaire is a game. Having someone deal you a bunch of cards so you can collect and inspect them is not.

No, I just picked out the first definition of 'game', the primary one, if you will. As I said before, I didn't read through them all. Again, I don't necessarily disagree. As a game, AC was quite "lite" in features and substance. There were elements of it that appealed to me, either in concept or in execution, but ultimately it wasn't something that kept me playing for more than a month. And ditto with MMORPGs. I haven't tried many, but the few I have tried didn't grip me, even though I did wind up paying a couple of months for a few MMO games.

I just thing some of the arguments I heard here are wrong and abusive. AC may not fit your personal definition of a 'game', but it's still a game in the eyes of many hundreds of thousands of people, fans and critics alike.

For the record, I consider both Solitaire and trading/collecting/battling card games to be 'games', just of totally different types.

 

[Speevy]

Well first, I was talking about a standard deck of playing cards (hearts, clubs, spades, etc).....nothing special or custom.

If you gain a sense of pride in your card collection, it's still not a game I don't think. Certainly no more of a game than collecting DVDs or baseball cards or whatnot. Magic: The Gathering obviously straddles the line since it's collectible but also a legitimate game. I don't see what the sense of pride might do to make it a game, though. If someone puts new rims on his car and thus finds new pride in his Honda, is he playing a game?

If a card says "You are the winner" and you stop playing when you receive that card, then it could be a game. Do you get to draw as many cards as you want or is there a limit? If you can just draw to infinity then you are a guaranteed winner everytime, and that might make it a non-game, or perhaps a "false game" (something that has the appearance of chance or challenge, but is really fixed).

Okay, then I return to my previous point.

I have a perfect town, with perfect feng sui, completely paid off, with over 1 million bells in the bank.

There are several collectibles you get just for earning or winning something.

Despite the fact that none of those things is by itself the point of Animal Crossing, it does fit this silly definition of a game.

There is a goal. You work to accomplish that goal.

By the way, do you consider "leveling up" a valid part of game design? If so, you must concede that much of leveling up is just a byproduct of playing for a long time. Just like having the most items, clothes, or a cool looking house is the ultimate byproduct of one's dedication to Animal Crossing.

I quit when I want to. I win when I say I've won. I can even make myself feel better afterwards by listening to Totakeke Slider as the credits roll. Is that not what happens at the end of single player games?

 

[border]

I have a perfect town, with perfect feng sui, completely paid off, with over 1 million bells in the bank.

There are several collectibles you get just for earning or winning something.......

.....Despite the fact that none of those things is by itself the point of Animal Crossing, it does fit this silly definition of a game.

Well, is any of the stuff you've achieved really any kind of game-ending victory? Is any of it stated to be the "goal" of playing? Or is it that you have imposed your own personal ruleset on the software?

Remember that Drinky Crow and I are in slightly different territory.....I'm a bit more focused on something that has a definite ruleset and a definite END and some sort of defined victory/failure. He seems to think that even a perpetual experience is a game so long as there is a neverending series of tiny goals. I am not really sure about where to put it in the spectrum.

Perhaps it is better to think of it as a hierarchy, with everything holding degrees of "game-ness". If AC is a game, then it is probably about as close as you can get to not being game while still fulfilling a few periphery requirements. It has a couple stats that you can build, but that's about it.

 

[olimario]

D...Did you just use Gamerankings score as a way to prove quality? Did you just use POPULARITY as a way to prove quality? :lol :lol

Seriously, if you're going to defend that game, make sure you do it with some level of intelligence. Saying that "popularity" or "average of review scroes" is proof of a quality title proves that you are the single most stupid person ever to live.

So, get back to me when you actually have a legitimate defense. Or you can go on about how Animal Crossing is all about MOMENTZ WITHOUT GAMEPLAY, and I'll just laugh some more.

O... Of course I did.
Average of review scores is the single greatest and most objective way to show quality.
Sales reflect consumer interest. It seems well over a million people decided it was not only worthy of the title 'video game', but decided it was enough of a game to spend $20-$50 on.

Your opinions are based in nothing but biased delusion.

 

[seismologist]

Well, is any of the stuff you've achieved really any kind of game-ending victory? Is any of it stated to be the "goal" of playing? Or is it that you have imposed your own personal ruleset on the software?

Remember that Drinky Crow and I are in slightly different territory.....I'm a bit more focused on something that has a definite ruleset and a definite END and some sort of defined victory/failure. He seems to think that even a perpetual experience is a game so long as there is a neverending series of tiny goals. I am not really sure about where to put it in the spectrum.
.

By your definition would you consider Flight Simulator a game?

 

[xsarien]

Your opinions are based in nothing but biased delusion.

Coming from someone who defended Kirby's Air Ride to his last breath...

 

[border]

O... Of course I did.
Average of review scores is the single greatest and most objective way to show quality.
Sales reflect consumer interest. It seems well over a million people decided it was not only worthy of the title 'video game', but decided it was enough of a game to spend $20-$50 on.

Assuming that this is not trolling or parody/hyperbole....

Does that mean the next time I hear you complaining about the poor quality of the GTA games or the NaughtyDog/Insomniac platformers all I have to do is post their Gamerankings score (all higher than 88%) and their sales figures (all greater than Animal Crossing) and you will shut the fuck up?

*fingers crossed* *hope, hope*

 

[olimario]

Coming from someone who defended Kirby's Air Ride to his last breath...

65% isn't so bad.
I've seen people love games that scored much lower.

 

[Amir0x]

O... Of course I did.
Average of review scores is the single greatest and most objective way to show quality.
Sales reflect consumer interest. It seems well over a million people decided it was not only worthy of the title 'video game', but decided it was enough of a game to spend $20-$50 on.

Your opinions are based in nothing but biased delusion.

Hey, from what did you summize that I was biased? Please, enlighten me. Because coming from you, and I have lurked and read many of your posts, this is the single most hilarious accusation ever to come around since the dawn of mankind.

And, as to your first point, you are so wrong it can be proven with charts and graphs. Enter the Matrix was wildly popular. Guess what. Guess. It sucked. One of N*Syncs albums is one of the all time great sellers. I guess by this standard, N*Sync must either be one of the great musicians of all time or they must be objectively good.

Now, I say to you again, unless you can come to me with some line of defense worthy of actually responding to, this will be my last statement on this subject.

 

[olimario]

Assuming that this is not trolling or parody/hyperbole....

Does that mean the next time I hear you complaining about the poor quality of the GTA games or the NaughtyDog/Insomniac platformers all I have to do is post their Gamerankings score (all higher than 88%) and their sales figures (all greater than Animal Crossing) and you will shut the fuck up?

*fingers crossed* *hope, hope*

I acknowledge I'm in the minority on those games and that my view is simply my opinion on them. I know sometimes it doesn't seem that way, but I'm clarifying now.
And I think everyone pretty much agrees with what I DO say about the titles you mentioned. My complaints are that the platformers don't control as well as they could and that each segment of GTA could be much better, but as a whole it's a good experience.

amir0x is treating his statement of 'animal crossing isn't a game' as a fact.

 

[border]

By your definition would you consider Flight Simulator a game?

I'm not even sure if I have a cogent definition as of yet, but if the flight simulator has no goals, no scoring, no ranking, no stat-filling, no ending, no victory/failure, and no measure of competency whatsoever then it would be a simulator rather than a game.

The only way to "end" would either be to land the plane or crash the plane, so perhaps that could be construed as an admittedly abstract victory/failure measurement.

 

[Amir0x]

amir0x is treating his statement of 'animal crossing isn't a game' as a fact.

First of all, Drinky is the one who said Animal Crossing isn't a game. If you proceeded to read all my posts on the subject, I acknowledged AC was a game.

Secondly, I'm not treating anything I say as fact. You're not stupid, I assume, so every post I make about a game, movie or television show is going to be my opinion, no exceptions. Now unless I say the word "factually" (such as in Sims you can die, in AC you can't) then you should have no reason to think I feel anything I say is fact. It's first grade.

 

[olimario]

Hey, from what did you summize that I was biased? Please, enlighten me. Because coming from you, and I have lurked and read many of your posts, this is the single most hilarious accusation ever to come around since the dawn of mankind.

And, as to your first point, you are so wrong it can be proven with charts and graphs. Enter the Matrix was wildly popular. Guess what. Guess. It sucked. One of N*Syncs albums is one of the all time great sellers. I guess by this standard, N*Sync must either be one of the great musicians of all time or they must be objectively good.

Now, I say to you again, unless you can come to me with some line of defense worthy of actually responding to, this will be my last statement on this subject.

EDIT: Just read your post above. Let's pretend the 'game' stuff is directed at Drinky, shall we?

Your argument would be GREAT if you didn't completely ignore the critical acclaim part of my post. Of course terrible titles sell well occasionaly. Sales have no bearing on quality.
But not only did no one accuse ETM of not being a 'game', but critics scored it very low.

Your argument is not only in the minority but it's absolutely baseless. To be a "game", a title doesn't need a defined ending or an ending at all. It doesn't a half-vampire protagonist and a hoarde of nazis to kill either. All it requires is that you can control it in some way.
Are the old text adventure titles not games either?

I don't understand how anyone can claim Animal Crossing isn't a game.
I don't know how anyone can be under the delusion that they are absolutely 100% correct in saying it isn't good when most reviewers and most people who purchased the game thought it to be a good one.

I'm baffled.

 

[Mejilan]

Well then, border, so too does AC have "abstract" goals to accomplish. Namely the paying off of your incurred debt and succeeding in getting your house into the hall of fame, or whatever they call the point-rating system. Optional "side goals" could include getting all of the various fruits to grow and proliferate within your town. That requires a certain amount of dedication, no doubt.

Another point. Many classic arcade games, lots of older NES games, and most pre-NES video games (Atari, Colecovision, etc) didn't have true endings either, for that matter.

 

[olimario]

I'm not even sure if I have a cogent definition as of yet, but if the flight simulator has no goals, no scoring, no ranking, no stat-filling, no ending, no victory/failure, and no measure of competency whatsoever then it would be a simulator rather than a game.

The only way to "end" would either be to land the plane or crash the plane, so perhaps that could be construed as an admittedly abstract victory/failure measurement.

Darling... Who said games need an ending? Oh Honey! :lol

game
n.
An activity providing entertainment or amusement

I see no 'and has an ending' in there. Do you?

 

[Speevy]

It's useless olimario.

You're just going to extend this thread for another page, a page which will inevitably lead us to the same conclusion.

Animal Crossing is my favorite game of all time. That's how strongly I feel about it. But I don't expect to convince anyone at GA of its quality.

 

[Amir0x]

Your argument would be GREAT if you didn't completely ignore the critical acclaim part of my post. Of course terrible titles sell well occasionaly. Sales have no bearing on quality. But not only did no one accuse ETM of not being a 'game', but critics scored it very low.

But again, Critical Acclaim does not indicate universal quality or even quality at all; it indicates general consensus. That's a key point, and it's a crucial difference. I just want to get that out of the way first.

Your argument is not only in the minority but it's absolutely baseless. To be a "game", a title doesn't need a defined ending or an ending at all. It doesn't a half-vampire protagonist and a hoarde of nazis to kill either. All it requires is that you can control it in some way.

Again, I didn't say anything about a game requiring an ending. I don't know where you got that from. :|

I don't understand how anyone can claim Animal Crossing isn't a game.
I don't know how anyone can be under the delusion that they are absolutely 100% correct in saying it isn't good when most reviewers and most people who purchased the game thought it to be a good one.

I'm baffled.

I only hold opinions that I feel are 100% correct. If I didn't feel my view was 100% correct to me, then I would not go through the trouble of debating it. Reviews do exactly zip to persuade me because I, through experience, have found the truth of the matter to be otherwise (for me).

I don't want to get into a flame war with you, but you have to look at things objectively as well. I love Nintendo DS and I have one pre-ordered, but just because I'm not interested in Animal Crossing or Puppy Times does not mean I am then biased against Nintendo. I just hope that after this post you realize that, because if you're going to start flinging around accusations of bias it's only going to degrade the debate.

 

[olimario]

The ratings of critics don't show universal quality, but it's the closest thing we have to it.
If there was some way of getting the review scores of ONLY people who purchased each title and averaging them, then that would be the best way.

 

[Gahiggidy]

Olimario has won the arguement. Thread over.

 

[Amir0x]

Olimario has won the arguement. Thread over.

He sure did!

 

[Gahiggidy]

Yea for Olimario!

 

[Amir0x]

Yea for Olimario!

I really hope you're being sarcastic!

 

[border]

Darling... Who said games need an ending? Oh Honey! :lol

And that makes you what.....at least the 3rd or 4th AC fan to pull out a horribly broad and poorly worded definition of "game" whilst ignoring the 10 other definitions that might exclude AC? After already being the 3rd AC fan to try and act like sales/GameRankings is some ultimate indicator of quality......I'm beginning to think that this is just insincere trolling to waste my time with already addressed talking points. Particularly with all this self contradiction ("I'm in the minority on GTA" followed by "I think everyone pretty much agrees with me")

If you legitimately think that watching TV or masturbating or whatever is actually a GAME, then fine. I'm trying to come up with a definition that I feel is more in-step with what most people actually feel constitutes a game.

Many classic arcade games, lots of older NES games, and most pre-NES video games didn't have true endings either

Which games, specifically? And which arcade games didn't end? That would be a great deal -- put in a quarter and play for the rest of your life! Most classic videogames ended when you ran out of lives, if I'm recalling properly. I don't mean some scripted cinematic nonsense as an "ending".....just a point at which the player reliquishes control, the slate of progress is wiped clean, and his success/failure is evaluated.

 

[olimario]

'Game' is a broad term. When you tighten the term you get into genres.

 

[border]

"Game" is not that broad of a term. If you are listening to a song on the radio, and someone calls you and asks what you are doing.....does it ever even enter your mind that the answer might be "I'm playing a game!"?? :lol I doubt that that exchange has ever happened at any time in man's history.

The "anything that amuses" definition is not the common usage of the term.....and it essentially sucks all meaning out of the word because it makes a "game" out of every single human activity that someone might derive entertainment from (essentially all human activity).

 

[Mejilan]

Perhaps, but we aren't TALKING about every other activity that might amuse or entertain. We are talking about a disc, containing a video game, played on a video game console, that happens to amuse and entertain (some people.) So in a broader sense of the term, AC can and is defined as a game. You may have your own personal opinions about what defines a game or not, but it's not fair to shove that opinion onto someone else and expect them to readily accept it.

If you can agree that a scripted, cinematic ending to a game isn't required, then what's so bad about a game that allows you to choose your own moment for relinquishing control, as you put it. Perhaps my goal in AC was to pay off all of my debt, get the highest rated home, get all of the flowers and fruits to blossom in my town, and then hit up Totokeke the next Saturday to watch the credits. Boom. Game over.

Game over.

Edit - Funky typos.

 

[border]

Well I would say that at least classically, the relinquishing of control (or "ending point") has to be involuntary, and come at a point predetermined by the rules of the game. Baseball ends after 9 innings. Poker ends after a few rounds of betting. Golf ends after 18 holes. Super Mario Brothers ends when you lose all of your extra lives or you beat the final stage.

If you let the player make up their own rules, then yes pretty much anything can become a game. How many cups of coffee can I drink in an hour? How long can I breakdance to my favorite song before I get too tired? How many pages of As You Like It can I read in an hour? But drinking coffee, breakdancing, and reading are NOT inherently games -- they only become games when somone goes beyond their essence and imposes some sort of challenge, ruleset and finishing point on top of the activity. Similarly Animal Crossing might not be a game in-and-of-itself, but only becomes one if somebody sets some kind of arbitrary goal/finishing point for themself. I would not have too much of a problem with that viewpoint, except that you have to acknowledge that it isn't really a game in its "out of the box" state any more than reading a book is a game when you unwrap the cardboard box from Amazon.com.

The other problem with the "anything that amuses" definition is that it simply defines games through a totally subjective experience like amusement or entertainment. I think bowling is boring, but I wouldn't say that it isn't a game just because I don't find it amusing. If this is the definition of "game" that people want to cling to, then Animal Crossing is not a game because I wasn't entertained or amused by it. I win....game, set, match.