Yuku free message boards

I feel safe in saying that The Sims sucks without having played it.

First, it's from the maker of Sim City, one of the most overrated games of all time.

Second, I've read some reviews of it, and it sounds God-awful. Even Gamespot's 9+/10 review of it is almost entirely complaints.

Apparently, the game is making sure your Sim wakes up on time, goes to work, eats and goes to the bathroom, and goes to sleep on time so it can wake up the next day.

I think I have a pretty good idea of what the game is like in my head. Take Sim City, replace "wait forever for taxes to build up" and replace it with "do tedious crap that you actually have to do, but don't want to do, in real life".


I've heard people talk about the "fun" of torturing the Sims, but based on everything I've read, it sounds like unleashing natural disasters in Sim City: Not much of anything, and pretty stupid, too. At the best, I imagine it'd be like buying a Mortal Kombat game, trying out all the fatalities, and then never playing it again.

And in the Sims, you probably have to play the game "normally" for a while before you can even do some things to your sim.

Quote:

---

But go to any MGS 2 board and say "I've never played MGS 2, but I think it sucks" and you should get some fruity replies. Say "I've never played MGS 2 but I think it rocks," and you probably won't get much grief.

---

You know, this reminds me of another interesting issue, which could almost have its own topic.

SHOULD we be bothered when someone seems to superficially have the same opinion as us, but for a different, possibly stupid, reason? (As a fake example, "Goldeneye rocks because of the big head mode! It's so funny!")

Like the example you gave, it didn't used to bother me. But there were reasons for that. For one thing, if someone doesn't give ANY reasons why they like something, it's easy for me to assume they like it for reasons similar to my own, which obviously I would consider good reasons.

If the reasons they gave weren't that great, I still might not have been bothered, because I know some people have trouble articulating why something is good. Again, regardless of their stated reasons, it's easy to believe that deep down, our shared fondness is due to the same things.

As an example, these old reviews of Super Mario Bros. 3 from the classic review archive.

I'd be more inclined to agree with the lower review, but let's face it, it doesn't really say much of substance about the game. In its defense, I imagine it was hastily written so the site wouldn't only have one negative review of the game.


But the top one just really seemed dumb to me. I can't even imagine, really, why someone would hate that game, so I have to rely purely on what was said. And that boils down to, "But beyond this, the game is just slow and boring." But, uh, the game is NOT slow. It's one of the most fast paced sidescrollers around. Remember the video where it was beaten in 11 minutes? Yeah, it was faked, but that's not important (it COULD be played that way, and I think stretches of the game REALLY are played that way, even if no one puts it all together in one bravura performance like that). More importantly, the game doesn't NEED to be played that way; some stages do encourage exploring, which could lead to slower play. But considering the autoscrolling levels, I don't think a reasonable person could miss the potential for how fast SMB3 can be.



So, I named cases of a person having the same opinion, but for no stated reason, or an insufficient stated reason. The third case would be if the stated reason is blatantly retarded. That of course is the biggest issue.


Also, when someone disagrees with me on many, many things, but we happen to both like one particular thing, it makes me wonder if what I said, "Again, regardless of their stated reasons, it's easy to believe that deep down, our shared fondness is due to the same things," could still be a reasonable assumption.

Weird, I just so happened to be looking at this thread right before it was bumped.