Jimquisition: Joy Begets Anger

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Can't say I don't know how that feels. Whenever a new Pokemon game come out, there is always that very vocal, and very annoying group of "original fans" that always need to vent and rage about how Pokemon can continue to be a thing after 14 years or how the new Pokemon are always stupid looking and nobody can like the new ones.

Or perhaps for some of the meaner ones, how we can be such sheep for essentially buying the same game with a shit story, when for many Pokemon fans it's hardly about "story"(not saying there aren't those who don't enjoy it or anything)

I had one person give me a bit of shit because I said I loved generation 5 of Pokemon. She had a sneer on her face, like she couldn't even begin to believe what she was hearing. The best part when she asked to look at my sketchbook, she saw a variety of monsters that she thought looked really fucking cool. Didn't want to break it to her that most of those "cool" monsters were actually doodles from generation 5 itself, and the only thing she even knew about Pokemon Black and White was trubbish and Garbodor.

Same thing with CoD. I never understood why that game is consistently blamed for "ruining" gaming. How does a single game ruin the games industry?
Nobody told anyone to make their games CoD clones. If you hated how X game became a CoD clone, than send that angry letter to X games dev. Not CoD's dev studio for being a bunch of unwashed ticks.

Well, this is a complex debate in my point of view.
Thank you very much Jim for this video, that covers all the main points
(I was already typing a comment when you were answering it in the video :D)

However, there is (and this is mainly covered in the video) one element I think is major. Whether the point of view is Macro or Micro. Sometime, I would like a music album in a Micro level, like "yes, this is an album that has a great atmosphere, that makes me want to dance, or whatever". But in a Macro level, in comparison with other album from the same artist, I would be disappointed ; like "the quality is so not what it has once been".
And I think that this is, not a positive feeling, but still a sign of "love" in a way. This is because I "love" an artist that I want to be able to send a signal like "well... this is ok but be careful". And having everyone judging the album on a "micro" level, like "oh yes, this is a good album actually !" can create a "fear" feeling.

There is an interview of Matthew Herbert when he was "Radio Boy". He said something like "Bjork made me listen to her album, and I told her this is a very bad album ; and then she redid everything before releasing it"; and he added "you have to be a very bad friend if you don't make people aware of their mistake".

(it was about the album "Vespertine" for the curious).

What I try to say is that I am sure the album was already a good one ; no doubt, Bjork is a talented artist. But sometime you don't want people that would listen to this album just once their all life, to say "Wow, what a wonderful album !!!" (the "wow" effect) and just drop the album the second after, and never give a sh** about it anymore ; while you committed so much for the artist yourself, listening to albums again and again and again, grabbing the essence of it ; and knowing, in the bigger context, the macro one, that something is going wrong.

This doesn't justify any "rage" or any "insulting" behavior ; but I think this is important to acknowledge that some people can be "angry" because they "love", not just because they "hate". Because they "care" about an "art" they are afraid of being destroyed. The debate can be about the legitimity of judging other people "point of view" ; and yes, there is kind of a condescending tone in this way of thinking. But I just wanted to point out this possibility too.

The new DmC was a really solid title that was a lot of fun to play. It's not like it doesn't have problems, but the series it was spawned from also had a multitude of issues, not the least of which being a protagonist with major personality inconsistencies. The original series was decent, but I'd be hard pressed to put any of them into a top 20 list of best games I've ever played. That said, I was completely taken aback by the outlandish amount of hate leveled at this game. I even had a person in the real world ask me my opinion of the game and then verbally attack me for saying I enjoyed it.

Whatever happened to the phrase "to each their own?" I also enjoyed Mass Effect 3, it's multiplayer component, and didn't care at all about the ending everyone whined about for half a year later. You have every right to like or dislike something, but the instant you start attacking me personally for my tastes in games is when you start making an ass of yourself. No one has the right to tell me what I can and cannot like. If you want to sneer and say something like "well if you want to like a shit game, that's fine with me," even that is better than getting in my face over a reboot that neither one of us has any say in.

I'd like to think it's just a phase some people go through. It's called the 'self-righteous teenage boy syndrome' and it's not a pretty sight. I can talk from bitter experience since I am a past sufferer. Albeit, it was for music and not games. I am not proud of this fact and I am glad that I have grown out of it. Though I will say in my defence that music is a far more communal experience than games.
The thing about games is that if someone likes playing a game that you don't particularly care for, it is hardly going to affect you. Just as Jim Sterling said in his video. With music, it is slightly different. If some individual chose to play out loud something that you dislike, you may be able to go to another room. Or maybe you don't have that luxury; and it is quite possible that this is where the arguments start. TV is similar example to this.


Do you really not understand why people who bought DA2 based on the perfect score, opened the box and out fell a turd would be mad at the reviewer?

As others have pointed out, it is silly to assume that what was in the box was a turd. I loved Dragon Age 2... I did two play-throughs in a fricken row. Are you saying I like crap? Or maybe tastes differ and what tastes like candy to me tastes like turd to you. Because, obviously you cannot have an objective game review. People have tastes. This site shows that they would look like: http://www.objectivegamereviews.com/

On a final note: his wife? I thought Jim was gay.

Admittingly, yes you cannot have an objective game review. When it comes to DA2 however there are objectively BAD things in it. These aren't small things either some of them are big examples of bad game and story design. You can like the characters in DA2, I didn't, but thats subjective and give room for interesting discussions that's fine. You may not mind that your character from origins is almost never mentioned, thats ok. YOu may not mind the changes to the gameplay that made DA2 less tactical, thats just some people liking action more than having to pause and work it out.

When the seemingly permanent choices you make in origins just get ignored? Thats bad. If Alister dies in origins hes just back no explanation no nothing just the developers going well we want this character to live more so.. hes back. When siding with either the templars or mages makes no difference what so ever. Thats also BAD. whats the point of picking sides, i mean this game is supposed to be heavily focussed on the story and the choices you make, but in the end it doesnt matter. Even then, if you could forgive those two things there is one BIG BAD HOLE in the game. the "dungeons" all of them were cut from a larger map with some sections opened and others closed, but in the end they were all the same. You just keep going through the same cave or manor over and over again. Its like playing the first two levels of super mario world and only having minor changes to the background. The first 2-3 times going through them is ok then it gets tremendously tedious. ITs less of an adventure and more of a treadmill at that point.

Its ok to like DA2 and ill defend anyone who does, BUT to give it a perfect score when there are actually bad things in the games design, that shouldnt be defended. Nothing against Greg Tito, I wasnt one of the people who jumped down his throat for his review. The review did irk me somewhat and it really felt that his bias towards dragon age itself blinded him in his review.

Bors Mistral:
I have no problems with Greg liking Dragon Age 2. My issue is with him, as a professional reviewer, giving such a flawed game a perfect score and calling it "A pinnacle of role-playing games with well-designed mechanics" and "what videogames are meant to be".

Then, he goes on to do a TW2 review, and that's a game superior to DA2 in almost everything, and gives it a 30% lower score? I worked as a game reviewer from 2000 to 2007 and in examining some 60+ games I know that it's hard not to let your personal preferences influence you. However, especially when handing scores to games in the same genre that are released relatively close to one another, you should be able to stop, have a look, and see that something is wrong with your grading.

I'm sorry, the Witcher 2 is better than Dragon Age 2? Please explain to me how that is anything more than your personal opinion.


Casual Shinji:


Because God forbid people genuinely like these games. After all, how can anyone like something that doesn't reinvent the wheel, or is aimed at the lowest common denominator?

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but the beauty of that is when you say you like or hate something, anyone else can say thats stupid if they really want. And if you are part of a movement that supports this thing and helps it (much to the determinant of all around it), people have every right to call you out on it. Anyone who bought a 'premium' BF4 is a moron: There, I said it, and I'm right. They just paid twice the price for a broken game, and the next game will be even more broken for it now that the developers know people will fork out for, what is essentially shit. Now we can all suffer thanks to the actions of people who just had an opinion that BF4 was worth it.

....Because if people buy a game that is broken, the developers will automatically make the next game even more broken? I don't buy that, you do know that EA is in massive trouble for the shoddy work they did with BF4 right? As in, they're getting sued by their shareholders for screwing the pooch so bad. Call me crazy, I don't think they're in a rush to repeat the same process. Also, please don't be so abusive to people who don't conform to the same opinion as you, it's not very civil.

I think that this video kind of ignores the seedy underbelly of the games industry, games that are so sexist, racist or otherwise deplorable that the only reasonable course of action ~is~ to take offence at someone liking them.

If someone admits to liking some kind of hentai game where you're encouraged to rape your own relatives repeatedly, or a game where you're encouraged to shoot all black people within the game world, is the sensible response really "Oh that's nice, good for you"? Would I really be wrong to get in their face about their unhealthy kinks? Or at the least kindly ask them never to mention those games in my presence ever again?

I find myself displeased when a reviewer gives something a positive score that ends up being really bad. For example, if someone rated Colonial Marines highly and then I skipped down to the store and purchased it, I would be upset. Not livid, mind you, but displeased.

A real example is actually your own reviews. Jim, you tend to share an affection of games I typically like. As such, if you score a game highly, I give that more weight than other reviewers who may be hit or miss. This is the point of reviewers as I see them. A sort of curation that point the less informed in the right direction. As such, when you gave Ridiculous Fishing a game of the year award, I immediately ran out and bought it (aka, downloaded it while sitting on my ass). It was fun, I enjoyed the game, but game of the year? Nah. So it provoked (mildly) me to post in that thread that this game was merely ok. It was a good purchase for the money and would last you a few hours. But it's incredibly short and shallow when compared to any other number of games that could have gone in its place (tearaway, for example, a video you seemed to love).

You're right, the livid anger doesn't make sense. But I certainly understand feeling mildly let down when a reviewer you trust advocates something that you spend money on and dislike. Perhaps if I had hated ridiculous fishing, or maybe if it was $60?

At least someone saying that a game or movie is bad isn't wasting my time/money.

The only one there that I disliked out what you mentioned was 'Gone Home', even then I don't hate the game or those who like. I hate those who call it deep and meaningful, mostly because I cannot see it. It's like how critics loved 'A Painted Bird'; I just get the feeling we've seen to completely different things. If there is an obvious flaw with a produce, they need to tell us.


This is the problem with this world. Where having ANY sort of opinion whatsoever makes you a target. Even if your opinion doesn't hurt others directly.

It would appear that game review has now become the latest target of polarization...just like either politics or religion. Almost makes me wonder how Ayn Rand would have responded to it in regards to her views on Objectivism. (This coming from a guy curious enough to wonder how she would have responded to Bioshock itself.)

This makes me happy I tend to not read the comments for reviews, as I have a low tolerance level for this kind of retarded thought process

also, fuck what other people say, DmC was good.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but the beauty of that is when you say you like or hate something, anyone else can say thats stupid if they really want. And if you are part of a movement that supports this thing and helps it (much to the determinant of all around it), people have every right to call you out on it. Anyone who bought a 'premium' BF4 is a moron: There, I said it, and I'm right. They just paid twice the price for a broken game, and the next game will be even more broken for it now that the developers know people will fork out for, what is essentially shit. Now we can all suffer thanks to the actions of people who just had an opinion that BF4 was worth it.

Because Battlefield 4 being broken and people buying it makes it so that no other future games can have quality or variety ever again. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, that doesn't make someone any less of a dick for claiming people are stupid for liking or disliking any piece of media that's perfectly in their right to like or dislike.

Jimothy Sterling:

The Ancestral Trail, have you read it!? The images you were using would suggest so? Sorry this is off topic, but it excites me knowing I might now be the only person who has read them, I've yet to meet anyone else who has.


Bors Mistral:
I have no problems with Greg liking Dragon Age 2. My issue is with him, as a professional reviewer, giving such a flawed game a perfect score and calling it "A pinnacle of role-playing games with well-designed mechanics" and "what videogames are meant to be".

Then, he goes on to do a TW2 review, and that's a game superior to DA2 in almost everything, and gives it a 30% lower score? I worked as a game reviewer from 2000 to 2007 and in examining some 60+ games I know that it's hard not to let your personal preferences influence you. However, especially when handing scores to games in the same genre that are released relatively close to one another, you should be able to stop, have a look, and see that something is wrong with your grading.

I'm sorry, the Witcher 2 is better than Dragon Age 2? Please explain to me how that is anything more than your personal opinion.

Buh? I've only seen part of a walkthrough for Witcher 2 and even I can tell you the game appears to play smoother, has a complex/grand story line, doesn't follow a Tolkeinesque fantasy guide line, and has a more pleasing aesthetic. I mean, like I said, only part of a walkthrough, so there's no guarantee that those remain true, but I'm sure that Witcher 2 doesn't put you in the same cave five times and asks you to pretend they're different caves.

Can't say I don't know how that feels. Whenever a new Pokemon game come out, there is always that very vocal, and very annoying group of "original fans" that always need to vent and rage about how Pokemon can continue to be a thing after 14 years or how the new Pokemon are always stupid looking and nobody can like the new ones.

I guess that's the crux of that kind of issue. Those people who bitch about the new games don't actually play them, so they aren't worth listening to. Meanwhile, those who do play them sing their praises to the high heavens.

I didn't like Diamond and Pearl myself. (That's gen 5 right? I get gen numbers confused, sorry.) I know the story for pokemon was never the highest priority, but I did feel like it was perpetuating the stereotype that all pokemon games are the same, at least as far as story goes. That's why I preferred Black and White, when the main villian actually remains a threat until the very end of the game and comes so close to achieving his goal.
...that being said, Turtwig is pretty much one of my favorite pokemon now, and I liked a lot of pokemon that came out of that game, Arceus and Giritina especially. Shit, I even like the ice cream pokemon and garbodor.

OT: The reasons this is a thing vary. For me, I dislike things like DmC or Metroid: Other M not exactly because the quality of the game is to a higher or lower standard (though I'd argue they're both waaaaaay lower) but because they're a prediction of things to come. A lot of people are now upset because the old Dante/Samus they loved might not ever come back.
So in struts the reviewers calling the game good (in the case of DmC anyway) and encouraging everyone to play what the fans perceive to be a bastardization of a series they enjoyed. It certainly doesn't help when the quality of the game takes a dive along with it. I mean, that was what most people complained about with DmC: the unnecessary reboot and the lack of quality.

And everyone else already covered objective versus subjective opinions in reviews, so I won't get into that.

Hmm. Something to think about in this episode.

Although I cannot agree more with the bit at the end that it's not my job to buy games other people want to see more of and not buy games they don't want to see more of. Screw off, people who think like that, I buy the games I want to play and don't buy the games I don't want to play.

Wii U owners seem to do it a lot (or rather, I encounter a lot of them who hold this attitude). Telling people they should buy Need For Speed 2012 Edition (I can't keep track of the titles anymore, it's far too milked and they keep reusing old titles to boot) on Wii U so EA will support the Wii U. Telling people they should buy Rayman Legends, AssCreed IV, and Watch Dogs on Wii U so Ubisoft will support the Wii U. No. I absolutely will not do that. I both hate EA's business practices and have no love for Need for Speed, so I'm not buying a game I don't want from a publisher I despise just so they might put more games on Wii U. As for Ubisoft's games, if I actually wanted any of those three games (as of now, I don't), they are multiplatform. I'm not going to limit myself to the Wii U version when I could get superior versions for my PS4 or better yet, my PC, just because you want more Ubisoft multiplats on Wii U. If Ubisoft puts out a game I want to play that's exclusive to Wii U, then I'll get it for the Wii U. Until then, I don't only own a Wii U so I'm going to buy whatever version of the game I think will be best.

Oh, and I'm not buying Bayonetta 2 either. I never asked for Bayonetta 2. I don't want to play Bayonetta 2. I'm not going to buy it anyway just so Nintendo might think about bringing in more third party exclusives (they should already be trying to do that anyway, and it's not my fault if they have no business sense).


Rushed games like Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3.

What exactly was rushed about ME3? There was nothing rubbished about ME3 at all, people were just upset that they didn't like the ending, which was pathetic really.

What's pathetic about people being upset that a developer blatantly lied to their faces? I've sat through plenty of bad endings, but none pissed me off more than Mass Effect 3. It was all the things BioWare (mostly Casey Hudson) told us it wouldn't be.

Also the controls were fairly rubbished too. I don't know why so many third person games feel the need to cluster as many options as they can onto one button but it's really annoying. Take cover and dodge roll should never be mapped to the same button, it just makes things frustrating when you want to roll away from an enemy and Shepard glues himself to a wall right next to said enemy, or when you want to take cover behind something and Shepard starts rolling instead. Uncharted is also guilty of this. And The Last of Us, did you really need to map so much stuff to triangle? I don't really enjoy when I'm playing online and I can't pick between interrogating a downed enemy or reviving a downed teammate, nor do I enjoy having an enemy escape my shiv attempt because a supply box came into range immediately after the "shiv" prompt appeared on screen.

I didn't like Diamond and Pearl myself. (That's gen 5 right? I get gen numbers confused, sorry.)

They're gen 4.

On the subject of Pokemanz, I always love when people complain about the new designs being "bad" and "uncreative" while forgetting how many bad and uncreative designs gen 1 had. Sticking three Diglets together to make a new Pokemon isn't creative, nor was sticking three Magnemites together. Having a pile of sludge evolve into a bigger pile of sludge isn't fantastic either. And what makes a living pile of sludge any better than a living bag of garbage anyway? If Grimer was gen 5 and Garbodor was gen 1, people would probably be talking about how lame Grimer is instead. Gen 2 wasn't very creative either, they just put a bunch of regular animals in there and maybe changed something minor if you're lucky (Noctowl is just an owl, Sentret is just a ferret, Miltank is just a cow, Stantler is just a deer but he has psychic horns wow. why it this praised as good design but newer designs shat on?).

Ugh... I suppose I'm one of the people aimed at here. Although I don't think I've ever spewed bile.

Jim, if someone disagrees with your opinion of a game then you're free to ignore it. You shouldn't have to deal with anger and bile. To that extent I agree with you.

HOWEVER, what I think you are maybe neglecting to take into account here is that you're a professional games reviewer. You're not just some guy on the Internet. People, both gamers (I hate that title but let's use it for now) and games DEVELOPERS, look to you for guidance on how to spend their money or what they can improve about their work. That's one heck of a responsibility that you have there.

As a professional games reviewer, your job is to CRITICISE. When you don't do that, you are doing a disservice to your readers. I've seen other professional reviewers point out some of the problems I've had with this game, while still giving it a "9" or a "10" (thereby proving, once again, that review scores are inherently worthless). Again, it's completely worthless to "rate" somebody else's subjective experience. The point of a review, in my opinion, is to give its readers enough info that they'd be able to assess, with at least a certain amount of accuracy, whether the game is for them - whether they'd have a good subjective experience of their own with it.

And if that's the task that reviewers have, then in this instance a LOT of them have failed with me. Angry Joe, for example, pointed out some of the problems that I have with the game - the fact that the two-weapon system makes the weapon-upgrade system completely redundant, since you never know which weapons you'll have access to, for example - but basically said "Even if this bothers you, you'll still love the game." Well, I didn't.

I don't begrudge you your enjoyment of the game - in fact, I wish I'd shared it. But the fact remains, I wasted £45 on this game - not a huge amount of money for me, but still something that I could've put to much better use - which has, in my opinion, zero replayability. It's just too linear and there's too much combat, with enemies I didn't care for, using mechanics that had plenty of problems with them. I spent an equivalent amount of money on "Skyrim" - a game that also has a lot of flaws - but I've had over two hundred hours' worth of playtime on "Skyrim". And by and large they've been more worthwhile than those I've spent on "Bioshock Infinite". That's my subjective experience, but it's caused in part by objective flaws in the game's design.

My problem with the acclaim this game is getting is that I feel that it will encourage the developers to go further down the road that they've gone down here. Which, to me, is making a generic FPS with boring combat, but set in a hugely impressive world with a very good story. I feel - and a lot of people obviously agree with me - that "Bioshock Infinite" is a huge step back for Ken Levine. On a philosophical level, Levine's games are no longer about "making your own story". Instead I'm watching someone else's - Booker DeWitt's, in this case - and while it's a really, really good story, it's not one that I ever felt that I could or did influence in any way. I felt that the game was trying to be a movie, and I was a passive observer to it. That to me is not what makes a great game, and it's not the direction I want to see this particular developer's games take.

Almost twenty years ago, Ken Levine made my absolute all-time favorite game. I KNOW he's better than this.

But again... a lot of that is subjective. Not all of it though. When a game has problems, the professional reviewers should let the gaming community know about it so that they can decide whether or not the game is a worthwhile purchase. They should also let the developers know about it so that they can take that information into account when continuing to develop games. I just feel that the reviewers of "Bioshock Infinite" largely failed to do that here. And that's why I think that - while BILE is certainly not warranted - the criticisms are.

People tend to question positive reviews of bad triple A games. After all the reviewer may simply giving it a good review to a major company to ensure that the they continue to get games from this company. It would be interesting to see if people are generally more angry at bad triple A games that get good reviews or bad games made by smaller studios that get good reviews.

Also given that Jim made videos encouraging people to get angry at companies they don't like he shouldn't be surprised when people take this advise and apply it to other things.

I'm sorry, the Witcher 2 is better than Dragon Age 2? Please explain to me how that is anything more than your personal opinion.

It's reflected in the average scores received by these games. On Metacritic Dragon Age 2 got a reviewer's score of 7.9 and a user score of 4.4.

By contrast Witcher 2 got a reviewer's score of 88 and a user score of 8.4.

So according to most people Witcher 2 was better than Dragon Age 2.

I liked DMC gameplay. I was just sad that the story and aesthetics took the turn they did. Still, for $10 it was enjoyable enough. The color palette was my biggest problem aside from the story. It's very unpleasant to look at.



I'm not trying to pick on you here but this is pretty much a widespread issue. Why do people believe that they are somehow owed a good experience?

Because that is what you're paying for. If you didn't think it would give you a good experience, you wouldn't buy it.

To use your food analogy - if you go to a restaurant and the food sucks, you're going to feel annoyed. Particularly if it got glowing reviews.

In fact you may, as a lot of people do, go online and complain about it to a more general audience in order to warn others away from it.

Except, if it was only the food you didn't like, you wouldn't complain. Anyone who said, in a complaint, "The Lamb and Lentil soup was terrible because I did not like the cilantro" would be considered a complete idiot; you not liking the taste of the dish does not make it a bad dish. I hate seafood, but this does not make people who enjoy seafood inherently crazy. And I won't get angry at them for raving about the fish chowder at the local pub.

Obviously if there is something STRUCTURALLY wrong with the food then there is a difference, e.g. "the food was late", the steak was not cooked the way I requested it", "there was a severed finger in my vegetarian entrée", etc. But you would not get angry at someone who recommended the restaurant, you would assume they had a different experience than you.

Well, the problem I see with your argument here is you are talking entire genres - and most gamers won't really buy genres they don't like and expect great things. Heck most gamers won't even read the reviews for niches that aren't theirs.

But they will get annoyed if a game is highly reviewed that falls within a genre they like, and if it is touted as being their sort of thing.

So in real terms, they aren't complaining about getting served seafood when they order seafood.

Further games frequently are severely structurally flawed. Take say, The Sims 3 - on some computers that game requires a certain degree of computer literacy just to get it running, otherwise it will just boot you out in about ten minutes or so. It has a metacritic score of 86.

XCom Enemy Unknown, realise I like this game but if it was a restaurant it would be shut down it is so riddled with bugs. 89 on Metacritic. They still haven't fixed most of the old bugs as of Enemy Within, the expansion which got 86.

These are supposed to be good games in their genres, but even on a basic playability level there are serious problems.

I think to some extent the backlash positive reviews get is born of this sort of thing - where gamers who thought that a game was going to be just what they wanted find it sorely lacking, whether it is technical issues or the game just isn't as well thought out as it is billed as. To some extent their anger is an instinct to warn others.

Now the fact that it tends to be personal and not about attacking the work - is one of the things that really does need addressing. If we could keep anger tethered to what people are really angry at, which is generally products and ideas rather than actual people, this would be a much better world.

I don't think the anger itself is the problem - I think it is the tendency to ad hominem, to tie people up so closely to their ideas that you can't quite separate the two, and thus you take an attack on one as an attack on the other.

Oddly, in the cases that should inspire the most rage, this phenomenon doesn't happen. I tell people I liked Sonic '06, and people either laugh and assume I'm joking, or gather around like I'm some exotic daredevil telling a story about how I drank an entire bottle of hot sauce in 10 seconds.


But that's the point. "Not being good" is not the same thing as "doesn't work." If I buy a game that is bugged so bad that I cannot play it, or I purchase a physical disk and it is broken before I even put it in my console, you can sure as heck bet that I will be angry and wanting my money back. But if I play through a game, start to finish, and don't like it, I have experienced the entire product. I cannot un-play the game after I have finished it, I can't return the experience that I already had. I may not have liked the game, but the game being bad isn't a horrible offense that should get me seethingly angry.

You're right in that I would probably then be less inclined to go back to the same "store," and maybe even advise others to not play the game, but I can still take something positive away from that experience. I will never demand a refund simply because the entertainment I took part in was not to my liking. That was a risk I signed up for when I bought the thing.

Doesn't work isn't the same as not as advertised. If I am advertised that product A will do B/C/D and it does not actually do/contain C and D then the product is not what it is suppose to be.

You said you purchased the new aliens game correct? Well the game didn't contain a lot of what was advertised, not to mention it didn't work properly. If you bought a car and was told it contain a satellite radio and leather seats, then after receiving the car found the radio missing would you chalk it up to not liking cars without radios and move on?

There is a very real difference between subjective taste and false advertising. If I order a cheese burger and they forget the cheese I am not complaining that I don't like the taste of a burger without cheese. I am complaining that I ordered a cheese burger and I was given something different. That is my real disagreement with this Jim rant. If a game advertises something and doesn't deliver then we are all perfectly justified in complaining.


Acton Hank:
I think I know when this kind of overblown bile started; remember back in 2011 when Dragon Age 2 was released and and got metabombed and everybody was surprised because there was never a such a big difference of opinion between critics and players?

A popular or hyped game getting metabombed seems business as usual now, doesn't it?

It might have stared before this but that was when I first noticed it.

I think Spore was the first real example. Which was....2008?


Let's look at the infamous Dragon Age 2 review that you mention. No, people should not be getting angry that he enjoyed the game. The fact that he enjoyed it is a legitimate part of the review. But there is a very large step from saying you enjoyed a game, and singing its praises to high heaven and not even looking at potential flaws. That is not reviewing. That is advertising.

This was my thought as well. When I rag on Greg for the Dragon Age 2 review.

Calling Dragon Age 2 the pinnacle of RPGs, and what games should be, was pure advertising, I dont care that he enjoyed it, I bought it because before that point I trusted escapist reviews. But no Greg fucked me over there by not mentioning the inherent flaws in the game of which there are many.

I experience much the same whenever I talk to anyone about Anime, and I think it should relate to real life too.

I'd admitted openly to the sin of loving Naruto, so far I've never met anyone IRL who also liked Naruto... and had more than a few rage and tell be I shouldn't call myself an anime fan. Then there's when I like anything with ecchi in it and someone will just scream Hentai...

I like Naruto! (Only the good parts, not the filler.) Most people at this point roll their eyes.

The real blasphemy is if you admit to liking Bleach. Explosions occur.

The only game that I (fucking despise) don't really like that it kinda bugs me that other people do is Metroid Other M. And it's not like I'm angry at them, I'm more, just... confused. Befuddled. Like, really? These people might as well be from a different planet since I cannot relate to them in any conceivable way to even begin to understand why they would like that abomination. But it's not like I take it personally or something =x

People can like DmC all they want, the problem was by attempting to sell this rebooted title was, if it was successful, probably would have killed the original series in favor of putting funding into making "DmC2", which is why I think if DmC was a standalone game under a new.....everything, I would've given it more favor.

DmC as a new IP? would've been good.
DmC as an actual Devil May Cry title? it was trash to me.

But even then, I don't direct hate at people for liking it, I hate Capcom for letting it happen in the first place, because once again, Capcom prove they don't know how to deal with the West.

I cannot believe that this is actually a thing. I think "idiot" is being far too kind to people like that.

I don't think this is really a thing. Are there people online who shit on anything? Sure. Do most gamers get angry if someone liked a game they didn't care for? Bullshit.

The DMC thing is an instance of a series hardcore fans being upset about a change in direction of their series. Even then there were plenty of reasonable and even positive voices as well.

A couple of things.

1) Nice episode overall. I liked it more than I though I would. I completely agree that people need to get over it when someone else enjoys something they dislike.

2) Please don't do that thing where you assume entire groups of people MUST be lonely, hate-filled, joyless sacks of underage crap just because you disagree with them. Generalizations are dumb.

3) New thing? Are you messing with me right now? This shit has been around as long as people have liked things. There were cavemen that hated other cavemen because thy liked certain cave paintings of deer and shit. Maybe the reviewer hatred for users is new, but honestly, I haven't noticed it happening very much.

4) Since you pretty much asked directly for a reason, I'll throw my take in here. I've experienced exactly what you're talking about in this episode. I have disliked people for liking something. For me, it comes from a place of extreme irritation at undeserved praise. If something is clearly terrible, but it still receives praise, that's annoying, sometimes to the point of hatred.
Also, I think you dismiss the "It makes devs create more of the same thing" argument too quickly. Granted, it isn't anyone's duty to dislike certain games so the stop coming out. Not at all. However, that doesn't mean positive reviews don't have that effect anyway. When Bioshock Infinite receives massive praise for its story, there are companies that will tweak their content to be more like that. That can cause anger.

In the end, I think criticism of all things is generally healthy. If everyone sat around agreeing with each other, nothing would ever improve. By endlessly criticizing ever little thing about everything, we can make progress. We just have to be able to ignore the vitriol part and focus on the helpful bits. This includes everything from actual content to the reviews of said content. The lack of acceptance can get very out of hand though. Sometimes people need to just get it through their brains that things are liked by other people.

Also there's a very important distinction here that I think Jim is missing, probably because he's a reviewer.

When praising a game, there are two statement things you can say:

1. I liked it.
2. It's a good game.

These are two completely separate statements. You can like a bad game (I like Cross Edge, for example), and you can hate a good game (I hate Halo, for example).

Unfortunately, so many people in the world merge the statements and only ever advocate one thing:

1. Because I liked it, it's a good game.
2. Because I don't like it, it's a bad game.

Wrong. WRONG! People need to divorce their personal feelings from objectively looking at what a game is. The thing is, when someone else then suggests that a game you liked is NOT in fact a good game, people take this statement as an attack on them LIKING it, instead of an attack on them saying it's a good game - because they are unable to now tell the difference between the two statements.

Jim has fallen into this trap I fear, unable to separate criticisms of his statements about the quality of a game from statements that he liked a game. Same with the Dragon Age 2 review. It's NOT a 10/10, regardless of how much the guy liked it. He can like it all he wants, but liking it does not make it a good game.

People are not attacking you for liking a game, people are attacking you for saying a game is good. Unfortunately, you're a reviewer, so the two things come in the same package.

I think I know why it exists and I'm sorry if someone else said it first, but I don't want to read the whole topic.

Hate for joy exists because people are mad that the thing they hated and think shouldn't exist is being given a reason to exist.

When they see people like Bioshock infinite, they see people who prop up "pretentious art bullshit" and give it a reason to exist.

When they see people like mass effect 3, they see people who like "dumbed down linear shooty games that ruined RPGs forevuuurrrr" and give them a reason to exist.

When they see people who like kirby, they....uhh......Actually that one has me puzzled. I'm a pretty big kirby fan and while Mass attack looked kinda lame, I can't see why they'd hate people who like it. Maybe they're afraid Kirby games will all become pure gimmick centered?

Like...Jim, how would you react if someone told you unequivocally that they loved Aliens Colonial Marines or Ride to hell Retribution, to the point of hoping more of the exact same gets made? Probably confusion, at least.

Granted, I'm not one of these people. If someone likes a game I think is absolute shit, I'll facepalm and go "well, alright, your choice, man. I guess someone's gotta like it."

Hell, I'm one of those weirdos sometimes. I LOVED Shadow the Hedgehog, despite the fact the story and dialogue was garbage and the gameplay was kinda broken.

The Hipster gamer has arrived. Its too mainstream to like games that reviewers like. When the indie reviewer points out that the game everyone else likes has it flaws, its hip to latch on to that bad review and laugh at others who enjoyed the game.

I can't help but feel alienated every time Jim makes a video talking about crazies that are apparently all over the community, I can only think "so there are crazies who respond like that? Alright then, interesting to know" and move along.
I can't really relate to it and haven't come across too many such crazy people myself, but that's assuming that this is common knowledge by now:


I could basically apply that to every JimQuisition video that harps on about the crazies. Yes, being in Jim's position I could imagine that he would attract a huge amount of attention from crazies and face the worst kind of crowds.

But ultimately people he's trying to target will never change and/or don't even bother watching JimQuisition videos (because it's not about game reviews), and the people who he isn't targeting (e.g. me) can only shrug our shoulders and move along.

I find it odd that Jim talked about games as "pure joy factories" when he opened the video with footage from The Last of Us, which is, as Yahtzee put it, Naughty Dog's Oscar bait to the Summer Action Blockbuster of the Uncharted series. Slavishly adhering to the trope True Art Is Depressing. Not my cup of tea, but I see how some types of people would be fans. I understand being angry with someone hating something you like, because it's easy to take it personally. When I first heard Jim hated Assassin's Creed II, my first thought was "Dafuq is wrong with you?!" and I still think that sometimes. I haven't played Bioshock:Infinite yet, but I can see how people would hate it for not being enough like the first game, since the name "Bioshock" is now synonymous with the mood, atmosphere, and thought-provoking story that didn't talk down to you, the player (see the trope Viewers Are Geniuses).

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
Register for a free account here