Jump to content

Which is the most mean ( as in average) game?


Junker
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was wondering if there is a consensus game which represents the most average game?

 A game that is neither good nor bad but both at the same time?

 A game you can use as the yardstick to measure all games against, and they will either be better than, or worse than?

 Is it even possible when games have so much variety? Maybe it’s limited to genres? 
 Is it Knack?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I (perhaps unfairly) refer to Days Gone as "Video Games: The Videogame" because in every trailer it looked tropey to the point of parody. The not-zombies, the crafting, the "survival" elements, the lite stealth moments, the clearing of outposts/enemy camps/whatever. I'm sure it's actually a lot of fun to play, but the individual elements feel like they're coming from a checklist.

 

So I guess the "measure" for subsequent releases would be "is this bit of gameplay better or worse than what Days Gone did?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Fry Crayola said:

I'd be more interested in the most modal game - that is, the game with the most features that are also found in loads of other games.

 

A platform game starring a cartoon animal who collects things and goes through fire, ice, forest, sewer, and mine cart stages!

 

A racing game with circuits based on real life, and which can be played in arcade, multiplayer, time attack, and free roam modes!

 

A first person shooter with weapons including a pistol, shotgun, sniper rifle and grenades; levels that include an escort mission and lots of brown crates; and featuring a female advisor who speaks to you over the radio!

 

 

 

... that sort of thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, thesnwmn said:

Any of Sony's third person action/adventure games.

 

All the same developed by numbers and focus tested mediocrity. Dressed up in pretty clothes and employing the same tricks on repeat.

I’ve played a fair bit of GOW 2018, Forbidden West* and Days Gone. I can’t say I’ve disliked any of them, but feel no enthusiasm to go back to them. They were all super slick and technically impressive, but… I don’t know.


Objectively, I know they’re good games - but there’s no hook for me. I might go back to all, or some of them and try again - but there’s so little time in the day. Maybe if I was a teenager I’d play the shit out of them.

 

*I played a lot of the first Horizon but remember little about it. I think I liked it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Junker said:

 

 A game you can use as the yardstick to measure all games against, and they will either be better than, or worse than?

 


by your definition that’s any game. They’re all worse than Slay the Spire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure where else to put this but watched a little video of the Noclip guys discussing their game of the year picks. One of them picked CODMW2 and I had to suppress the urge to boak when he compared it to Metal Gear Solid 5.

 

Spoiler

He meant multiplayer but I'm still not sure I entirely understand.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, thesnwmn said:

Any of Sony's third person action/adventure games.

 

All the same developed by numbers and focus tested mediocrity. Dressed up in pretty clothes and employing the same tricks on repeat.

In terms of production values, they're very much high end, though. In terms of big budget games, something like a Far Cry 4-6 feels far more middling.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I played a game that was free on PSPlus about 2 years ago and after about 25 hours (more fool me) it struck me as being the most average thing I'd ever experienced. It actually sapped my enthusiasm for games the further I got into it. It wasn't bad as such, just painfully derivative.

 

Average combat, bland monster design, insipid puzzles, cheesy narrative. It sort of looked fun, but really wasn't.

 

It was so average that for the life of me I couldn't remember its name when this thread came up. I'm typing stuff into google to jog my memory:

 

Deathstalker

Demonslayer

Doommonster

 

Even the fringing name isn't memorable.

 

Eventually I got it:

 

Darksiders II: Deathinitive Edition

 

I want those hours back. It fooled me with its blandness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BadgerFarmer said:

In terms of production values, they're very much high end, though. In terms of big budget games, something like a Far Cry 4-6 feels far more middling.   

 

Production vales don't make something not "an average videogame".

 

Although of course it depends on criteria.

 

For me it's not about which game has the true most average score, the most 5*/10 game. I quite like the idea above of the most common mechanics. Like if more games.than not have shooting then the most average he must have shooting.

 

But for me average is just the blandness in the core of gaming. In single player I'd say it used to be the military first person shooter. But now I'd say it's third person action/adventure games. And you basically pick between Sony's mash of cookie cutter games or Ubisoft's Assassins Creed.

 

 

* because fuck 7 as the representation of average quality, it's just the base of what most people will consider spending money on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, thesnwmn said:

Any of Sony's third person action/adventure games.

 

All the same developed by numbers and focus tested mediocrity. Dressed up in pretty clothes and employing the same tricks on repeat.

Which games are you thinking of here? Aren't Sony's third-person action games generally considered some of the best games around?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Mawdlin said:

I played a game that was free on PSPlus about 2 years ago and after about 25 hours (more fool me) it struck me as being the most average thing I'd ever experienced. It actually sapped my enthusiasm for games the further I got into it. It wasn't bad as such, just painfully derivative.

 

Average combat, bland monster design, insipid puzzles, cheesy narrative. It sort of looked fun, but really wasn't.

 

It was so average that for the life of me I couldn't remember its name when this thread came up. I'm typing stuff into google to jog my memory:

 

Deathstalker

Demonslayer

Doommonster

 

Even the fringing name isn't memorable.

 

Eventually I got it:

 

Darksiders II: Deathinitive Edition

 

I want those hours back. It fooled me with its blandness.


Absolutely this! It’s the most Satiscraptory thing ever. There’s quite a lot of these kind of games during the PS360 era. 
Something like - 

7D110676-9DB1-46EC-AE3E-0512C9388189.jpeg.c9e4f7354c91adfab26417f0da205ebe.jpeg

41C5969B-121D-4E56-A142-C0F1FC5BA94D.jpeg.d243c43067e3b47d3b6481f644a1e744.jpeg


…those who say COD or Sony Cinematic Universe, just LOL 😂 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, David Kenny said:

Which games are you thinking of here? Aren't Sony's third-person action games generally considered some of the best games around?

 

Yes.

 

But I'm not saying average means anything to do with quality or score.

 

I'm saying they are mechanically middle ground. Third person. Blockbuster film stylings and stories (for good and bad).

 

For me, they are by the numbers. Uninspiring. Middle of the road. They can still be a 8/9/10 out of 10 and be completely average.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, thesnwmn said:

 

 

For me, they are by the numbers. Uninspiring. Middle of the road. They can still be a 8/9/10 out of 10 and be completely average.


This game is uninspiring, middle of the road, by the numbers and completely average

 

[10]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, thesnwmn said:

 

Yes.

 

But I'm not saying average means anything to do with quality or score.

 

I'm saying they are mechanically middle ground. Third person. Blockbuster film stylings and stories (for good and bad).

 

For me, they are by the numbers. Uninspiring. Middle of the road. They can still be a 8/9/10 out of 10 and be completely average.

I'm still not sure which games you mean exactly (are you saying that The Last of Us and God of War are somehow examples of the same thing). But it feels like you are reducing games down to an absurd degree, the fact that they are third person for instance, in order to find a similarity between them. 

 

Even if we accept that premise, that these games are carbon copies of each other, the "average" tag still doesn't make sense as they are exceptional examples of third person games, or games with cut scenes, or games with stories.

 

To be clear I'm not arguing you have to like these games, I'm just struggling to see how they qualify as average.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me it's something like Kingdoms of Amalur. A game I somehow finished without especially enjoying it,or feeling any particular urge to find out what happens next. It was fine. Not bad, not great. It had all of the things you expect from that type of game, and they were implemented adequately. A solid 5/10 game if ever there was one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think every AC games from the latest era. They are nearly perfectly average. Because they are exactly mediocre in all of the 250 things they do. Combat, exploration, quest design, graphics, world design, art design, story.

 

Exactly half of every game made is better and half of them are worse. But rarely anyone is attempting 2-3 of those 250 things at a time. 

 

Focus testing and excellent budget management has made Ubisoft  consistent in producing them so that each and every one is perfectly middle of the pack in every way. They polish each thing until the exact moment it starts to not suck and not a second longer.

 

Nothing about any one of them is excellent.

 

Afterthought: I think horizon would have started to be the same except the engine and graphics are so good they accidentally excelled at that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, David Kenny said:

I'm still not sure which games you mean exactly (are you saying that The Last of Us and God of War are somehow examples of the same thing). But it feels like you are reducing games down to an absurd degree, the fact that they are third person for instance, in order to find a similarity between them. 

 

Even if we accept that premise, that these games are carbon copies of each other, the "average" tag still doesn't make sense as they are exceptional examples of third person games, or games with cut scenes, or games with stories.

 

To be clear I'm not arguing you have to like these games, I'm just struggling to see how they qualify as average.

 

Spiderman. Uncharted. Last of Us. God of War. Horizon.

 

They're blockbuster films. Hit similar notes. All great and critically loved.

 

But they're also similar in craftsmanship. It's not a bad thing particularly. You're right it doesn't appeal to me but I understand why it does.

 

But they represent most of at least the big budget games industry. Sometimes story or spectacle over gameplay.

 

Average is not good vs bad to me. I think an average quality game that is utterly unique is not average. Average is the blockbuster you watch every summer. You know what you're getting. And you've seen so many things try and fail to find it. But the real shock is lacking.

 

Anyway, just different criteria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, thesnwmn said:

 

Spiderman. Uncharted. Last of Us. God of War. Horizon.

 

They're blockbuster films. Hit similar notes. All great and critically loved.

 

But they're also similar in craftsmanship. It's not a bad thing particularly. You're right it doesn't appeal to me but I understand why it does.

 

But they represent most of at least the big budget games industry. Sometimes story or spectacle over gameplay.

 

Average is not good vs bad to me. I think an average quality game that is utterly unique is not average. Average is the blockbuster you watch every summer. You know what you're getting. And you've seen so many things try and fail to find it. But the real shock is lacking.

 

Anyway, just different criteria.

I don't know if you've played any of those games, but one thing they don't do is prioritise story or spectacle over gameplay. They all have stories obviously, and they are more or less spectacular but I doubt any of them would be as highly regarded as they are unless the minute to minute gameplay was actually fun. I would say as well that for at least three of them I made the mistake of thinking I knew exactly what I was getting only to be completely blown away by what the game actually delivered.

 

Anyway I don't want to labour the point, it just seems weird to pick the best examples of "third person blockbuster action games" (and the Last of Us really doesn't fall into that category) to represent the average game.

 

Last point I promise, I'm not sure a comparison with blockbuster films really works either. Some explosions and some snazzy CGI might be enough to get people to sit through 90 minutes of a film, but nobody is sitting through 35 hours of a computer game unless the stuff you do in between the explosions and cut scenes is actually fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.