The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The "B" Game
Bean Delphiki
Registered User new member
Registered User new member
I was reading Tycho's exposition on the phenomenon of the "B" Game and it made me think of a game that when I first played it, I honestly felt that that was the best way to describe the experience I was subjecting myself to.
The game in question is Bullet Witch. If you haven't played it yet, and you are "B" movie lover and gamer, pick it up and play it. You'll understand what I mean.
The main enemies have their skin peeling off, yet draped around their necks as if it were an uncomfortable shirt that is too tight to get off over your head. The main character wields a humongous "broom" of a gun and runs around smashing through the enemies in next to no clothing (Yes, I understand this is a common video game device, it feels somehow more gratuitous in this instance). If you persevere to the end of the game, there is nothing that will prepare you for the difficulty of the final boss. I honestly hadn't felt that kind of sadism from a developer since Gunvalkyrie.
Anyway, that's one more game I feel that should go down in the annals of the "B" Game genre.
The game in question is Bullet Witch. If you haven't played it yet, and you are "B" movie lover and gamer, pick it up and play it. You'll understand what I mean.
The main enemies have their skin peeling off, yet draped around their necks as if it were an uncomfortable shirt that is too tight to get off over your head. The main character wields a humongous "broom" of a gun and runs around smashing through the enemies in next to no clothing (Yes, I understand this is a common video game device, it feels somehow more gratuitous in this instance). If you persevere to the end of the game, there is nothing that will prepare you for the difficulty of the final boss. I honestly hadn't felt that kind of sadism from a developer since Gunvalkyrie.
Anyway, that's one more game I feel that should go down in the annals of the "B" Game genre.
Bean Delphiki on
0
Posts
You've got a guy with a sword that shoots fire, shambling loli-maid enemies, tactical engine with some beef on it, a combat structure with a variety of special moves, cancels, dodges, skills, items, summonable fire-belching gear knights, and.... *Shudder.* Guilty Gear's storyline and voice acting.
I love it, but its SO bad.
Some games I ejnoyed and their Metacritic scores (Xbox 360):
Devil May Cry 4: 84
Viking: Battle for Asgard: 68
Street Fighter Anniversary Collection: 79
Street Fighter 4: 93
Dynasty Warriors: Gundam: 55
Spider-Man: Web of Shadows: 68
Is Spider-Man: Web of Shadows 68 fun? Is Street Fighter 4 21 more fun than Spidey? How about Street Fighter Anniversary Collection, are SF2 and SF3 collectively 14 less fun than Street Fighter 4?
These questions are asinine. Fun isn't measured on a 100 scale, fun is measured as a binary result: yes or no. Even though Dynasty Warriors: Gundam got a 55 score, I still had a blast sinking 40 hours into it and so did the friends that played it with me.
"B" games exist, sure. Dynasty Warriors 3, God Hand, Viewtiful Joe, and tons more. But, a good game is a good game, regardless of production values or Metacritic scores or any other damned thing the industry makes up to try and figure out if game X is more fun or valuable than game Y.
I'm a fan of "B" Games. I go out of my way to play games that aren't stellar, but are still fun. Bullet Witch borders on unplayable due to the worst magic system ever.
The best example of a "B" game out there is, of course, Earth Defense Force 2017.
Or in other words, it's everything a B Movie ought to be.
Also, Saints Row 1 is my choice, in fact I have 100% completion in that game. So good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Fighters_(video_game)
XBL: Aspis 9
Lotro (Landroval): Cleomenes [Champion], Ilithano [Captain]
Godhand, though?
WONDERFULLY /b/.
Well said. However, I believe that the metacritic ratings have some merit, if not in grammar. The points system is based off of some kind of rubric, just like any other metric, and though the large amount of points do make comparison ridiculous, they give reviewers the freedom to nudge a few points here and there to make a certain game's review higher or lower (binary) than other comparable games of a similar review grade.
But that's off-topic. If you really want to approach it using a binary system, you can use the educational rubric or any you want: less than 52 is a fail, higher is pass. The review makes much more sense that way.
This does not mean I condone rated game reviews in general, as the comparisons they make are done with all the genres and gaming eras in mind. If I want to get an RPG, I don't want to go to Toys R Us and get some soccer game from the original nintendo out of the bargain bin.
What I'm saying is, there is a theoretical possibility that an accurate rubric for reviewing games exists, just like the likert scale can be used in psychological studies. However, I do agree that the 100 point scale is too much for the accuracy of the review protocol, and should at least be cut up into chunks to better reflect its true precision and reliability.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
For a B Game has flaws
GOD HAND has no flaws (It's supposed to be incredibly difficult, it's supposed to have a very limited camera, etc.), it's does exactly what it wants to do, and perfectly
Edit: A good B Game, in my mind, is Dead Space
Movies have tried to do that for what, forty years? More? Quantifying entertainment is perhaps more difficult than quantifying a psychological profile.
To say nothiong of games that get dinked on Metacritic simply because some review site had a guy review a game in a genre that he (the reviewer) isn't a fan of.
Maybe I'm alone in this, but keep in mind that I've worked as a professional game reviewer. Quantifying games down to a score means that, simply put, a lot of people will pass on games that they would otherwise find appealing.
As an example, a friend and I were playing through some DW: Gundam. Now, this friend wasn't a huge fan of Gundam or Dynasty Warriors and wasn't interested in the game due to the low review scores. However, as we played it and he found characters he enjoyed playing as, his whole attitude changed. He wanted to play the game because the game was fun, even over other titles he was more excited about (like Persona 4).
Most licensed games are B games. They can sometimes turn out to be good or even excellent, but for the most part they're intended to be sold based on brand recognition instead of on quality.
Edit: The more I think about it, the more it bugs me. The Imagine series is B games. The author is pretty much asking himself "Is it possible to make a B game that I would actually consider playing?"
Ah, well then by that definition GOD HAND is a B Game
Let's say I have a friend who is a metacritic reviewer (I don't) and hates B-Movie games, just to be topical. He likes sports games and hasn't the slightest idea what irony or cliche is. I play Madden with him all the time. Now we go to Best Buy together and I want to get a console FPS. I'm picking out Army of Two and Killzone while he's looking at Blitz, and I come to him and ask him to choose.
"Eh." he says. "They're not really my thing, but I think Killzone is terrible. It has pathing and texture issues; I gave it a score of blah blah blah blah," I don't care because I've already got his opinion and I know he doesn't know what he's talking about past Hail Marys and linebackers. But he's my only outside source, and since I couldn't come to a decision about the two games, he's the deciding factor, even if his contribution and expertise are miniscule.
Why? He's my friend, not some PR guy who will regurgitate the back of the box. He knows, just like everyone, the concept of fun, and if he has a bad experience with a game and is biased against it, that doesn't make him any different from another friend who is not a reviewer but had a huge cold when he rented God Hand so he hated it. If I can't make my own decision, he's all I've got, and I trust him to make an honest judgment based on his experience, no matter what the circumstances.
Sure, I'll miss out on a few gems, but if I really wanted to catch 'em all, I'd diversify my sources. That's really all that I can do.
edit: That and playing demos. But we all know that scene.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I don't think "B" Game means what you think it means.
What the review doesn't score is fun. Fun is too subjective. I don't enjoy games that feature realistic portrayals of war. Not fun for me. But I understand that they're fun for a lot of people. This doesn't mean that the ratings should be specific to my tastes, because they're not really a measure of the fun that any one person is going to have with a game.
So I do think that metacritic scores can help define a "B game." Being more in line with the quality of what a game provides and not the fun that it provides, a B game should generally be lower in quality than an A game.
And I liked Mars Attacks more than I liked Independance Day.
I...don't think you get it.
I would do anything for another, or a re-make, or ANYTHING Blue Stinger related.
Absolutely. EDF is simply the best of everythign to come out of the Simple series (IMO)
Honestly, the fact that the article (and tycho) ignored the simple series seemed pretty odd to me.
One of my favorite B games is Clock Tower 3, and it gives final bosses a bastard to look up to. If the rest is a 3 out of 10 on the difficulty meter this guy's a 15. The first guide I checked on it advised you quit and watch the ending on youtube.
Robot Alchemic Drive, Zone of the Enders 1 and 2, Shinobi, Nightshade, Otogi 1 and 2, Gungrave: Overdose, God Hand, Bloodrayne 1 and 2, Psi-Ops , Stubbs- and myriad others. Some of these games are surprisingly well-recognized and have garnered some sort of reputation (or notoriety), but hardly anybody seems to have actually played them. I tell people that I loved Bloodrayne and they think I'm just some perverted freak with no standards. While that may be true, how can you not like a game where you are a ninja-vampire trying to stop cultist zombie-Nazis? Any game that involves fucking up Nazis has a shot at greatness in my book.
I also had and enjoyed the Game Boy Camera to the full extent allowed by law.
This distinction is really an outgrowth of the fact that the game industry has become very similar to the film industry in that it is driven by AAA megahits. Plenty of people just effortlessly glide between one AAA title to the next as they are released and will still proudly say that they are an enthusiast. There are perfectly fun games released all of the time that get absolutely no attention - that does not make them B games, but at this point we may as well concede that they're not of the same stock as the huge titles. All the better if the developer and publisher recognize this beforehand and let the game revel in its own niche.
For example, I'd say that something like Deca Sports is a B game, while carnival games wouldn't be. Or for a more hardcore example, something like Dark Sector or Army of Two would be B games
By that definition I've always thought of Godhand and Devil May Cry as B games even though they are all excellent games. I think if you try to include a certain amount of crappiness in the definition then you really can't differentiate a B game from a just plain shitty game.
How about we start with a simple distinction?
Should a game be considered a B-game based on how it is made (i.e. low budget, rushed development, low sales expectations), or on the end result (i.e. cheesy tone, gameplay that is fun in spite of perceived simplicity, etc.)?
For story, it's just like a Hollywood B movie. Somewhat ridiculous, not entirely serious. A bit of a wink towards the audience. Unfortunately, most games have stories that are no better than what you find in a Hollywood B movie, so this element doesn't do a lot of work.
"B" gameplay is when a game doesn't attempt to break any new ground whatsoever, but instead sticks with a tried-and-true formula. Ideally, it should do what it's doing well--that's how we can distinguish between "B" games and "bad" games.
Finally, budget is a factor. This should include marketing. Gears 2 has a B-level story, and doesn't break any new ground in terms of gameplay. But, you'd never call it a B game because of its massive budget (and especially the marketing).
The people above citing Serious Sam, Saints Row 2, and Earth Defense Force have the right idea. Other examples could be 50 Cent: Blood on the Sand, some of the recent Need for Speed games, and Castle Crashers (although Castle Crashers is on the border between B and indie). Dead Rising is not a good example--its gameplay is actually quite innovative.
In the effort of helping refine out definition of B-game more: I think Bangai-O is a pretty good example of what I feel a B game is. What do you people think of it?
Edit: Oh, and the obscure game thread reminded me of this one. Phantom Crash is another game I think is a total B game.
That raises an interesting point. Castle Crashers seems like a B game in some ways. Low budget, silly story, tried-and-true gameplay. But, maybe platform standards matter. On XBLA, Castle Crashers could be a AAA game.
But should platform standards matter? In the movie world, we don't give straight-to-DVD releases or made-for-TV movies a break. We just lump them in with B movies (except for a few standouts). But maybe platforms exert a stronger influence on what is possible in the video game realm.
There's no real nuance, or innovation, or any attempt at a plot beyond "You shoot a whole bunch of motherfuckers as fast as you possibly can."
But if you're in the right frame of mind, it's a whole lot of stupid fun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGwkfXmAjsU
PSN: SirGrinchX
Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
B games are the same way. Devil May Cry has B grade story and dialogue, but A grade cutscenes (in 3 and 4) and gameplay. That's not a B game. The Resident Evils are not B games. God Hand is more a work of satire than a B game. Like Starship Troopers. There's too much attention to and intentional manipulation of minute aspects of the mechanics and interfaces of these games for them to be considered B grade.
Right here. The shooting mechanics here are noticeably shoddy, and are fun despite that fact. That is a B game. Ninja Blade is a B game. The combat feels generic because it lacks the subtlety to the way hits connect or the way inputs are processed that would otherwise define it. It gives the impression that they were never considered in the first place.
Oneechanbara is straight up grindhouse.
All right, people. It is not a gerbil. It is not a hamster. It is not a guinea pig. It is a death rabbit. Death. Rabbit. Say it with me, now.
on the final mission
Quoted from games everyone forgot thread because it's a great example of a B game.