Topic: Ubisoft ‘Big Supporters’ of Wii U

You've consistently claimed people must play the game, and then they'll understand the game how you've seen it. That's why you kept badgering me about having played the game.

If you're finally agreeing that doesn't matter and can recognize you're in the minority here, that's great. There's no more to say anyway then.

I was disappointed by ZombiU because of 2 game breaking glitches that occurred while I was playing.

I was willing to play the game, but the nursery glitch happened to me(I really gotta learn to conserve less ammo, but still).
I waited 4 months or so for the patch(damn you Ubisoft) and tried to play the game again.
I was using the manhole shortcut to the safe house and a zombie hit me in the process. The result was a black screen, and zombies attacking me. It was an undeserved death.
After that, it's gonna be a long while before I go back and try again...
Ubisoft is ok, I guess.

@rallydefault

I agree with you, ZombiU is a really fun game and agree that people should play it. The mechanics it focuses on are really well done while some of the other things do fall apart. Overall it wasn't a very polished game but it is one heck of an awesome experience. I personally am ok with clunky controls and semi-bad voice acting as long as they don't affect my experience, if those things do affect your experience than maybe wait for a sequel that is more polished.

I've read pretty much all the reviews for the game, and its the reason why I didn't buy it at launch. I thought Ubi was pulling another red steel. So reviews do matter.. Someone mentioned to me that I should read the negative reviews closer, and I did, and this is when I found that every single review that gave it a mediocre score was knocking the game for something it wasn't trying to be.

That just null and voids their entire review. How can you say the game sucks because its not call of duty, when the developers weren't trying to make an arcade zombie game... It's like giving animal crossing a bad score because there's not enough guns in it. It totally destroys the reviewers credibility..... So why is it any different knocking a game because it isn't a shooter when the developers were not even trying to make a shooter?

Okay Mr Sony rep, your game is gud. Go home now.

Why because it's not a Nintendo game, but i have to admit i have lost what the word innovative means after reading it in every other sentence here on the Nintendo forums. If it's not a rehash unlike our friend Mario here it's poop, so by that logic if Nintendo made COD it would be called innovative, give me a break.

Oh by the way ZombiU is a good game i'm not saying it isn't, but you do realise the online elements is inspired by Dark Souls/Demon’s Souls. Which is not a bad thing but not innovative, unlike when From Software’s Demon's Souls first released.

I don't think you read his comments very thoroughly.

He's been stating why Zombi U could never be objectively considered a masterpiece, while The Last of Us probably will go down as a masterpiece.

I've read most of the comments here, i was just pointing out what the game is & isn't [a typical Zombie game].

ZombiU did everything what came before it, in some cases well & in some cases not so well but as you say far from a masterpiece.

I wish I could audibly sigh over the internet. How about this? <sigh>

You're a contrarian. That's all you are. All of your posts in every thread is you breaking down what somebody else has said just for the sake of argument. I have NEVER stated that people "must play the game." NEVER. Where are you getting this stuff from? The closest thing I said was that, if you want to actually discuss gameplay and "review" a game, you need to play it first. Is that what you're taking and making mass assumptions from?

It's not even fun arguing with you because you're so easy to pick apart. It's just frustrating. I feel like Christopher Columbus in his Epic Rap Battle episode lol.

Again:

You imply people that have played the game all the way through, and approached it as you have, will believe it is an amazing game.

I'm glad you can finally recognize this is wrong, and you are in the minority.

Edit: To expand on this more, since I know you'll be unable to connect the dots, the point above illustrates how meaningless individual opinions are when gauging the reception of a game. You countered my initial analysis of the game from an outside perspective as being unfounded, which is exactly what I was going for, as an outside perspective would lose its validity if it reflected my personal feelings. This is demonstrated by your clearly biased approach towards the game that most people did not share, therefore you are in the least best position to review the game objectively and speculate about its level of artistic achievement with respect to the rest of the industry.

Maybe it's the game's fault, atleast partly, for not distinguishing itself enough. The Walking Dead, or Last of Us doesn't seem to have that problem. ZombiU scores out a little better than Dead Island, so there's a positive.

I asked you a question. I implied, as many others have (including the reviews that you continue to stick to), that trying to play the game like a shooter (CoD, for example) is the exact opposite of what the game was going for. And thank you for trying to insult my intelligence. Very classy. I can tell I'm dealing with an educated individual.

Also, since this debate began, countless people have joined the thread and expressed their view that the game was actually rather nice if you approached it with an open mind and without an itchy trigger finger, all of which I've been saying countless times. So even on that level, your statement that "most people do not share" my opinion is growing weaker and weaker by the minute.

There's only been a handful of people who said they either like it or dislike it. Nearly equal.

Plus, judging this upon a random Nintendo forum with a topic that has a measly ninety two replies (most of which are your guys'), is a little ignorant. So no, his statement is not growing weaker. You're just becoming desperate.

@AlexSays and @rallydefault

All reviews are Bias, just some more than others. If reviews didn't have personal opinions then all reviews would be the same. I think it is perfectly fine to let personal opinion affect how you view different types of Art, that is what makes Art so amazing. Not everyone needs to enjoy the same Art pieces and not everyone needs to agree on what is considered Art, it is people's personal opinion that makes Art amazing.

Countless being, less than what we can count with our hands? lol. Fortunately I can count that high.

But now you're ignoring my original point and falling back on a couple users who also share your viewpoint. That's fine, I am glad you and a select number (apparently uncountable by some people) enjoyed the game. The same can be said for nearly every other game in existence, and therefore has little effect on how the game will be remembered with respect to the industry.

This is completely unrelated to the topic at hand (separation between individual opinions and impact on the industry), but thank you for your contribution nonetheless.

Edit: To expand upon this since I'm unsure of your dot-connecting ability; there are also pieces of art that are commonly recognized as being significant. Much in the same way as video games, people can separate their opinions and objectively see a piece of work for what it is. Not everyone loved the Mona Lisa, but it will still always be regarded as a masterpiece or high artistic achievement. Not everything is subjective, individual opinions do not sway an overwhelming majority.

And ZombiU might be recognized as being a significant step for the survival horror genre in the future but I believe it will only do this if a second, more polished, game is released in the series. The overwhelming majority's opinion is able to sway and individual's and this is why I personally try to avoid reviews. I find people often adopt reviewer's stand-points as their own and then claim that is what majority of people that play it feel (not saying this is the case with ZombiU, more of an overall point of view), this is why I try to play at least a few hours of a game before I have an opinion on it. I personally feel if the survival horror genre puts more emphasis on the survival part then ZombiU could be held as one of the main driving forces behind that change because of its Permanent Death Mechanic. I also think the Permanent Death Mechanic is a good idea for future survival horror games.

And this goes back to what we discussed earlier, what one video game was deemed average at the time but looked back upon as a great artistic achievement? This doesn't happen with video games. Books and paintings are different in that they are entirely independent of technology. The only way for a game to share this fate is if its a technological achievement, has an amazing story, or introduces a genre-changing gameplay mechanic. All of which can be determined at the time, not in the future.

This game did none of those. You mention 'permanent death' as if its new. It's not. This game did nothing out of the ordinary to be remembered past its time. This isn't a game people outside of Wii U owners (or even many Wii U owners..) talk about. This isn't a game that received a ton of praise throughout the industry. Interestingly enough, none of you who have played the game have commented on the sole reason it received any praise or outside recognition from the industry.

People cannot honestly think 5-10 years from now, the majority is going to look back on this game and determine it was an achievement of its time. There's no rational indication of this, only people saying 'well it could happen.'

People also promised me that we'd look back on The Conduit and praise it for revolutionizing the FPS genre and customizable control schemes. Look how that turned out.

Originally I wrote up this long paragraph of how games are all about personal experience but I decided not to post it. I see how important Reviewer's opinions and other people's opinions are to you and you will not be swayed. I try not to read reviews, I try to give myself a un-bias opinion when going into a game. I played ZombiU and loved how they used Permanent Death and how they used online functionality. I want to see more games try to use those mechanics. These mechanics can breathe life back into the survival horror genre by making it more about survival and horror. In no other game was I as scared to fight one enemy. In no other game have I had to continue after losing all of my items from death and have to find those items again. In no other game have I experience a Zombie Apocalypse how I thought it would actually be like. ZombiU affected the way I approach survival horror games and hopefully will affect the future of survival horror.

This is great for individual enjoyment, not so much for critical reception and historical analysis. There are people who follow the industry and analyze games from an outside perspective, completely void of personal feelings, and I happen to be one of those few people. (ie. why these discussions are difficult, because most people on gaming sites only care about their personal feelings)

I am glad you enjoyed the game though and I can appreciate your optimism for its impact on the future.

I do not believe that a unbiased analysis can exist.

You're mistaking the collection and analyzing of individual thoughts as being an opinion. A view based on outside knowledge, trends, and other information can be rationally constructed without an opinion in the matter.

I do not have opinion that The Last of Us enjoyed critical and consumer success. I have an opinion of the game, but it is separable from my rational view of its impact on the industry. Liking or disliking the game won't change the praise the game received, the technical feats it was applauded for, or the success it met on the market.

Same goes for MGS4. I personally couldn't stand the game, but I'm able to separate my subjective view from the objective reality of what it accomplished. Just because it is something you do not practice, does not mean it's impossible. We're veering into a philosophical discussion, but your stance is reminiscent of existential nihilism (ie. everything is relative or subjective, and reality itself does not exist). If that is your platform, I welcome the idea of cutting this short.

So basically our differences are you see what it has done and I see what it could do. It is kind of like the different between being an optimist and a realist. I think that is why we have different outlooks on different subjects.