I've been hanging out with one of my best friends over the past week, because we haven't seen each other all summer. He doesn't really game that often--at least, not as much as he used to, so I was quite bemused when he had asked me one day, "Hey, do you still have any of those old games we used to play when we were, like, ten?"

Of course, he was referring to those shitty licensed games we used to think were good back in the day. Monsters, Inc. for the PS2, Shrek: Super Party for the Xbox, Madagascar for the GameCube, and many others. None of these were terrible games in their own right--they just lacked the depth, soul, and practically anything else you sort of need to keep yourself from growing bored of it after ten minutes. They're basically McDonald's Happy Meal toys--cheap, simple, low quality, and neurologically toxic if you try to digest them.

Regardless, I said to him, "Yeah, I think I still got 'em around somewhere. Why's that?"

Then he kinda gave me a weird look and said, "...We should play them again sometime."

The reason licensed games tend to be of low quality, of course, is because they are developed as fast as possible to coincide with the release of whatever source material they are schlepping onto their disc. A lot of them use Christmas as an easy deadline, forcing developers to rush their work, giving them no time whatsoever to fix bugs and other things. Everyone knows this, right? It's not that licensed games are inherently bad--they're just not treated with the same level of care, time, and wherewithal as your regular video game.

I chuckled at my friend's suggestion and said, "We can play them right now, if you want."

He beamed, and a glint of his old childhood self was present in his face. He really wanted to play these games again.

---

This thread really isn't about licensed games, however. As we finished playing Monsters, Inc., my friend seemed visibly irked by the things I was saying during our session (ie. "Oh god, that's such bad design," "Haha, what the fuck are we playing right now?"). We had fun, and we laughed, but eventually, he got fed up with what I was saying.

"Oh c'mon, Jake. You realize these games are made for little kids, right? They're not gonna be perfect."

I was a little taken aback by his tone, like I punched his childhood self in the gut, or something. I was honestly having fun sitting with him and making fun of these games--but he seemed offended by something. And what bothered me the most was just his statement--these games are "just for kids".

I said, "So? That's not an excuse, is it?"

He rolled his eyes, and gave me a look that said, "Come on--you know what you're saying is bullshit."

We had a little argument about it, and he didn't quite budge. He's under the impression that games are exempt from "sucking" if they were designed to be played for children. One of the things he mentioned was that, as children, we didn't really give a shit if the game was a buggy mess of boring, time-consuming gameplay--we still had fun with it, because our minds were still developing, and we couldn't tell what's good from bad yet.

It wasn't a bad argument--but something about it just didn't sit right with me. I still don't think that a game's status as a "kid's game" somehow excuses it from being bad. Lots of people say Nintendo is a kiddie company, because they make super-simplistic, super-casual games designed for the whole family, like Mario, Pokémon, Kirby, and even Zelda to a certain extent. They're wholesome games that could be described as "kid's games," and yet they're still fucking fun to play. And that's because Nintendo gives a shit. They have the care, time, and wherewithal to make those quality games, and they aren't constrained by arbitrary deadlines like smaller companies are.

I think it's insulting to imply that kid's games can't have some sort of quality assurance. This idea that kids are too dumb to know the difference between intense, layered, in-depth gameplay and simple, bare-minimum entertainment. Maybe he's right--those games did keep me interested for some time during my childhood, but it's games like Zelda, Pokémon, and Mario that I still play to this day. They actually stood the test of time. Why should we expect children to be comfortable with the idea that they have games being made for them? That's condescending as fuck, isn't it? Even the term "kid's game" itself is very dismissive, and I always sort of hated it, because it implies that only a dumb kid could ever find enjoyment in this game.

I mean, why even make games like that!?

Boggles my mind.

---

TL;DR

When it comes to "kid's games", does the fact that they are apparently designed for children excuse them from being bad? I don't think that's a good excuse at all. Why should a "kid's game" be any less quality-assured than any other game?

I uh, had something to say here. Scrambled now. I'll come back and try again later.

Because children are more easily amused.

You were kind of a dick to your friend. Obviously those were good times for him where he had innocent fun with you and you there shitting on the games... I get where he's coming from.

No, if I were a dick, I wouldn't have spent the time with him at all--but I did, because I felt like it would be fun to sort of dive into the past and have a laugh at what we used to think was super entertaining back in the day. I thought he'd be the same way, but apparently not--I'm not allowed to point out that we've grown up, or something.

What's more interesting to me is the juxtaposition between our younger selves and our current selves, but I dunno--like I said, he doesn't game much, so he probably doesn't really think about the "quality" of games as much as he just plays and enjoys them regardless. I just thought he might be comfortable with laughing at his past self for a moment.

But yeah, no, I don't think the fact that kids are easily amused is a good excuse. I wasn't asking why kids enjoy dumbed-down games--I'm asking if it makes sense in 2015 to make dumbed-down games for kids in the first place, when it's totally possible to actually make them good.

Same for old games. I don't see why a game is exempt from me saying it's not fun just because it's old. (Obviously graphics department not included)

Like, a game being old doesn't make it's gameplay mechanics exempt from scrutiny. A good game's mechanics should hold up and be enjoyable regardless of how old the game is. As far as I'm concerned, a game being old doesn't make it's mechanics automatically good or exempt from scrutiny. I'd even say the same for indie games, and I get pissed off when people use the indie excuse when an indie game gets bad reviews.

This thread is obviously bullshit, Verb has no friends.

Quote from: Bacon on November 07, 2015, 12:19:49 PM

Same for old games. I don't see why a game is exempt from me saying it's not fun just because it's old. (Obviously graphics department not included)

Like, a game being old doesn't make it's gameplay mechanics exempt from scrutiny. A good game's mechanics should hold up and be enjoyable regardless of how old the game is. As far as I'm concerned, a game being old doesn't make it's mechanics automatically good or exempt from scrutiny. I'd even say the same for indie games, and I get pissed off when people use the indie excuse when an indie game gets bad reviews.

Yeah. When it comes to old games, though, I still think it's important to respect them for molding the industry and setting up the mainstays and conventions that we love to this day. While simultaneously criticizing their more dated aspects.

Like Halo: CE!

Yeah. I love Halo CE and even something more recent like Fallout 3, but that hardly makes them exempt from scrutiny of their mechanics. I'll be the first to admit that Fallout 3's gunplay isn't great,even if it's one of my all-time favourites.