30th hmv GamesMaster Golden Joystick Awards winners

Yet another reminder why I can't really take awards based on people's votes seriously, they're glorified popularity contests.

Gaming isnt like movies or music, where "good" is subjective. There are very clearly defined aspects when it comes to making a game "good." All the games that won these awards are "good" with their mechanics. Now, you may not LIKE the genre or type of game. But its not bad at all. More often then not, popular games are good games....yes, even the "hated" CoD.

I'll disagree on the idea that gaming has standards of "good". If someone doesn't like a game, no matter the reason, then it can not be considered good in their eyes. They have that right to make that call, even if their reasoning is unfounded. The idea then comes up if all those that consider the mechanics (as you mentioned) "good" are indeed wrong or right, which everyone is allowed to judge for themselves. So it's a continuous cycle. So that's just my opinion. So why do you believe there is some sort of standard/defined aspects when making a game good? Although as BladedFalcon said the conversation won't go anywhere, but I'd like to see why you think that way.

Story is pretty much the only subjective thing about gaming. "Good" contributes to if the game can play or not. If it responds and isnt broken. That would make a game "good." CoD is GOOD. You may not LIKE it. But liking something and it being good are two different things.

Wouldn't that necessarily mean that nearly all games are good if they actually play and the code is fine from what the developer intended and input? Wouldn't that also mean that someone could think the opposite and say that all working games are bad, but its up to people if you like it? That could mean that CoD is bad, but some people may like it. Interesting thought, but I believe its still subjective.

Its not just the core mechanics that makes a game playable that Im talking about. Im talking about generic templates all "good" games have. Blockbusters like CoD and Skyrim sell the copies they sell, not because its a shallow boring game. Gaming is not like music or movies, if the game itself is not "fun" no one is going to play it. If 10 million people think something is fun, chances are its fuckin fun. Chances are, you'll find SOMETHING to like about it. Which is what amazes me about all the people who try to hate on CoD. Its like a paradox effect in the worst degree....

Although I know many others had problems, it worked fine for me on PS3.

Uhh, yes, gaming IS like movies and music, where good is subjective. The characters and the story and its pacing, the environments and production quality are subjective. Just like how it's subjective how much you mind certain "bad" game mechanics. Just like how it's subjective how much you enjoy a certain type of gameplay (like a shooter, first or third-person, a strategy game, real-time or turn-based and so on and so on). And if you mean that a game is "bad with their mechanics" (whatever that means), then there are probably people who enjoy that too.

Uhhh, no, gaming is NOT like movies and music. Movies and music are not interactive. Its soley based upon the creators vision. So you might LIKE what the creator made and you might not. Story is the only subjective thing about video games, because even with the illusion of choice, its the only non interactive part of the game. You play what the writers intended. Tolerating bad game mechanics is not subjective. Their still bad, whether you can deal with them or not. I also already elaborated on the specific game genre. Just because its an FPS and you dont like FPS, doesnt mean its a bad game. What I mean about a game being bad with its mechanics is very simple. Poor platforming segments, bad graphics, balancing that doesnt work, enemies that all look the same, no level variety, the same pacing throughought the game. THOSE are bad mechanics, and the games that sell millions of copies do not have those. Period. That is something factual that you can observe within the game, not an opinion. That is why its different then movies or music. Someone might interpret a movie character or his lines different then someone else. There is no difference in interpreting if a game uses the same level template 15 times....

Interesting thought. What if the game is bad and that same 10 million who play it are just those that actually like what others consider a bad game? But I would think that if you believe that a game is good due to how well it sells along with its subjective mechanics, then that's a generalization that could be said to be the complete opposite. Although its right to say that I'm sure you could find something you like about any game, but then it becomes a matter of who makes the judgement call of what is considered good or bad compared to what you like or disliked about it, which would be up to every individual. I personally think that gaming is like music and movies since there are both present within most games. The only difference in a gamimg is the interaction involved, which I believe is subjective to how people act upon playing them and how they feel. Even if most people like a game doesn't necessarily make it a good game to everyone, as the same could be said about bad games. Mechanics are still subjective due to the fact that the gamer has the ability to like or dislike them, which means he could be the crazy one, or everyone else could be the crazy ones for liking what he considers "garbage mechanics". If we were to generalize what makes good mechanics and such things, then it would be easy to say that your right. But generalization of things doesn't necessarily make them true, but its just easier for us as humans to function through them. So in a in a micro level, everything's subjective; in a macro societal level, its easy to say that your right. Hehe, it was obvious that this wasn't going to go anywhere, but its still fun to discuss it. Gets me thinking.

"What I mean about a game being bad with its mechanics is very simple. Poor platforming segments, bad graphics, balancing that doesnt work, enemies that all look the same, no level variety, the same pacing throughought the game. THOSE are bad mechanics, and the games that sell millions of copies do not have those. Period. That is something factual that you can observe within the game, not an opinion." What would you think of Pac-Man, Super Mario Bros., and those games? They were great at the time, but unless you believe that gaming standards change with time, I would politely disagree. But then if standards do change in time, who's to say which one is the right standard to follow?

Gaming standards do change with time. The people who say which is the right standard to follow are people with common sense. Story and characters are subjective. But you evolve with the technology when it comes to level design and basic core mechanics such as gameplay and repetivness.

Common sense or sound judgement I don't think is a viable way to decide which standard is correct. Common sense is how we make sound and practical judgments for our well-being day to day and is an expression, but here we are playing video games which are not practical or good (productive) for us as in comparison to a multitude of other things we could be doing. So how can we as humans use common sense when it really doesn't exist? But its true that we may evolve with the standards of gaming when generally spread across the board, we all personally make our own choice of where and what the standard is if we even have thought about it at all.

Why the hell is this linked to Hello Kitty Party?!

Haha! Brilliant. That was because I didn't want the unfinished article giving away any of the winners. Although we all know that Hello Kitty Party would have done... erm... well.