Jimquisition: Joy Begets Anger

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Jim makes a great point as always but it does only cover one aspect of the problem. Over the last few years games journos have equally fostered that hatred by being excessively condescending to their own readers which in turn makes readers angry and more likely to lash out in return. Several high profile journos have taken a distinctly anti-consumer stance and a lot of people who trusted their opinions have felt betrayed by that.

Just some examples of the top of my head would be Ben Kuchera's defense of the always-online Xbox One DRM policy. Adam Sessler's opinion that people can't tell the difference between 1080p and 720p. The defense of Mass Effect 3 as art that should not be changed because the fans didn't like it. Ben Parfitt of MCV claiming writers like John Walker of RPS are not liked in the industry because they aren't 'one of us'. Eurogamer's refusal to stand by Rab Florence for making a very valid claim about game journos being influenced by PR. Ben Kuchera again using the Adam Orth 'Deal with it' slogan to close down arguments. Games journos themselves getting angry at readers for not buying certain games like Gone Home and Papers, Please. CVG saying people who have a problem with DMC being 30fps are 'losers'. There have been many, many examples over the last few years, Jim has even mentioned them on the Jimquisition.

I've been gaming for a very, very long time now and I can't quite remember a time like this where the names of so many people in the journalisming are known by so many readers. Now when a journo calls readers 'losers' and tells them to 'deal with it' they know who they are and can follow them on twitter, facebook and even YouTube. This makes it personal in a way. I guess my point is that while the internets is full of rabid seething hate at times, journalists have been equally guilty of kicking that hive and as NeoGaf has shown, the internets never forgets.

No Jim, it isn't just the industry's fault. It's everyone's fault.
Everyone who contributes to the financial success that encourages the industry to play "Follow the leader" (or "Tit-for-Tat" if you ever study Game Theory in economics). Demand steers Supply, not the other way around. An endless Supply without Demand is plain ol' worthless, while an endless Demand without Supply is endlessly frustrated.

And there are folks who are frustrated; frustrated at having nothing but annual derivative titles from the largest firms in the gaming industry. If you're looking for a game in a genre that isn't a copy of what is popular it's become problematic. Especially as other major players in the gaming business have latched onto this same strategy.

Basically, you're half right Jim. The fat cats have slowly moved away from supporting a variety of games to focusing only on an increasingly narrow band of highly marketable tropes and genres.
But it's the incredible financial success of those narrow band of games that has driven companies further into that model, like a rolling snowball.

Ideally, the biggest whiners would just shut their yaps and look for alternatives or foster competition. But that isn't always an option. Until the recent kickstarter and indie boom, there were almost no options.

So, assuming the "Frustrated's" demands aren't unrealistic, and no alternative title exists:
The are three options to respond to the problem (technically four, but these three are available to everyone):
1) Stay the course, hoping the market changes on its own (status quo)
2) Try to change the market's mind (vocal)
3) Leave the market (surrender)
[4) Enter the Market and do it yourself] (likely unfeasible)

#2 is the option these joyless folks go with. It's also the option that most easily leads to acting petty and degrading towards others. There's a reason I have the first three options in the order I do; I liken it to a loose cycle in which folks leave gaming (or at least a part of it).

They're still hopeful at #1, angry at #2, and give up at #3.

The whining and overblown outrage is either a direct result of #2 in that cycle, or indirect result from opportunistic trolls.

Delixe:
-snip-

I wholeheartedly agree. That whole condescending, belittling, "Shut up, you dirty plebs! Don't question your corporate overlords!" attitude these so-called "legitimate, high-profile, gaming journalists" seems to be throwing more and more often around these days isn't exactly encouraging any kind of peaceful and rational debate.

Wow Jim wow, You think a guy that does " Movie defense force " Would know THIS ISN'T A GAMER THING. This is a PEOPLE thing.

Tell me you won't be assaulted for saying how much you like Star Wars episode 1 in a sci-fi crowd, Hell You think DMC was bad, Tell people you liked Jar-Jar. Ask Movie bob about the Comic crowd attacking everyone now for liking "The green lantern movie" or any of the "Transformers movie"

I think the problem with the Dragon's Age 2 review is that it is a game that has major issues and is far worse of a game than the first one, and the fact that it was given a "perfect review" Greg was telling Bioware that they were doing something good in changing their formula from Dragon's Age Origins. And he was being paid to do it.

I think Jim was a little two quick to dismiss the legitimate reasons for this anger, quickly heading off on a tangent so he could just drop an insult without really focusing on the other side of the coin.

At the end of the day the game industry is out to make money, it mindlessly plays "follow the leader" because of the people who keep liking, and liking enough to buy, very specific games and types of games. You cannot separate the players from the industry here, as they are pretty much one and the same. Basically if you hate the industry and what it's become, your generally going to hate the gamers that provided the fuel for it to turn out that way. As more and more vitriol gets aimed at the gaming industry and more people become aware of the issues, you are of course going to see attacks on the "gamer side of the problem" as opposed to the corporations themselves.

Now, in a perfect world this wouldn't be an issue, the gaming industry would create enough games of enough different types with enough frequency to keep everyone more or less happy. Sadly, this isn't a perfect world, it's a world of bloated corporate ruin, where only a scant handful of games are created at a AAA level, and tend to only be directed at the most profitable seeming, yet easy to please, group of people.

See, the vitriol aimed at something like "Dragon Age 2" came about because "Dragon Age" was supposed to be a spiritual successor to "Baldur's Gate" and the "Infinity Engine" games, basically what a semi-turn based RPG like that would look like if done with then-modern technology. It succeeded with so many people BECAUSE of that, which shouldn't surprise anyone since people still play (and remake) the infinity engine games today. Rather than sticking with the happy demographic of people they had, and providing an alternative to the "Action RPG" games already out there, Bioware basically decided "hey, we've made a ton of money, but if we turned this into a simplified action RPG we could make even more, as that is an even bigger group of people!". So basically the people who WANTED a current gen equivalent of "Baldur's Gate" got stabbed in the back, and wound up not having any games at all, where the people who liked action RPGs simply wound up with another one dumped on top of the pile of all the games like that already out there. Basically people who wanted a different kind of game, a AAA series for them, went after Bioware, but also DA2 fans because not only was the game horribly put together (reused maps, monsters spawning out of nowhere, guys in platemail ninja jumping off of rooftops etc...), but because those people represented the reason why a popular game type which is rarely touched on a AAA level was again lost, and positive responses to the game simply encourage Bioware to make more of that type of game, as opposed to more RPG-like fare.

It should be noted when it comes to "Mass Effect" that controversy was brewing for a while, the ending and marketing really destroyed the series and generated rage, but it's another case where an RPG-centric game was turned into at best an action-RPG (more of a "customizable shooter").

Understand a lot of the anger on those fronts (and the logic can be applied with different sides to other, similar conflicts) comes from a simple situation where you have a bunch of gamers who want X having absolutely nothing while those who want Y have AAA games stacked as high as the sky with more on the way. The guy who might want Y might be part of a bigger audience in absolute terms, but the guy who wants X tends to also be part of a very large audience, just not quite as big a one, enough to spark internet wide conflict which gets VERY nasty because your not dealing with any kind of a fringe minority on either side.

Ideally, the industry would produce X and Y, even if they produced more of Y, but this is not what happens, everyone chases the bigger potential profits from Y.

Don't get me wrong, it's not a good thing, and the industry is involved, but the attacks make sense, and really the closer the numbers are the worse they get.

Also there are cases where there are other issues involved beyond the game itself. See with Mass Effect 3 the ending was bad all on it's own aside from the other problems that had been brewing. It wasn't JUST about the ending but about promises Bioware made, and then revealed in a "behind the scenes app" that they never intended on keeping even when they made them. On a lot of levels it was the same kind of deception as "Aliens: Colonial Marines" albeit not as technical as no faux demos were created, rather Bioware just had people in a position to know better tell fans things, knowing they were not true, and then feign ignorance later. Those who defend Mass Effect 3 generally wind up defending what Bioware did, you cannot really separate the two here, since it's all about the end result, if you can accept the ending of Mass Effect 3, then your pretty much slapping a stamp of approval on the game industry lying directly to the fans.

When it comes to DMC, again, the issues there are beyond the game itself. It's whether you agree with the reboot and them basically creating a totally new character and saying it's the old one, or not. From someone who is a series fan before that point and does not want the changes to be maintained and the status quo restored, those speaking positively of it are effectively hurting the series as a whole... after all it becomes a situation of "what I want vs. what you want" unlike the situation with game generes this is especially nasty because there isn't even the potential for the industry to do both, since your talking about the future of an established franchise. For someone to get what they want, you cannot have what you want... so to speak.

At the end of the day it might seem stupid, and people getting worked up over games, but it makes sense, especially as gaming becomes more of a hobby than a form of casual entertainment for more people than ever before. The industry COULD change a lot of this (I mean they could for example have simply created a new action franchise with a different sensibility rather than trying to change DMC, while still producing DMC games) but at the end of the day they won't, because while they could still make money, they wouldn't be maximizing profits as ruthlessly as possible. Short of a terrorist campaign against the gaming industry conducted by psychopaths, it's not going to change, so that means people are going to take the steam out of each other on the internet.... which at the end of the day is pretty harmless.

It's not enough to root for the things you love, you just root against the things you hate. I'd say this looks like more spillover from corporate rhetoric against their rivals affecting fans more than it really should than some kind of self-created personal vitriol against someone for enjoying something they don't. This congeals really well with people's inability to use reasonable filters on the internet when making comments.

AtheistConservative:
Sorry to break up the circle jerk, but it's time for the cold tyranny of economics to step in. Each year/dev cycle there's only so much money that will go into game development. How this limited resource is divvied up, ultimately controls the content available to us, the consumers. How publishers choose where to put their money is based on what sold well previously, and then looking at all the current project pitches and picking the most similar ones. So every time someone buys a crappy game, they are encouraging the publisher to make another crappy game. They are condoning it's flaws. Likewise, every time a reviewer gives a high rating to a terrible game, they are encouraging people to buy it, as well as concealing it's flaws.

The point is is that what you consider crappy and what another person considers crappy may be two entirely different things.

When a game is genuinely and objectively bad (meaning: poorly coded, AI that doesn't work, the game is non functional, ect) then it get's rightfully slammed like Ride to Hell Retribution, Aliens Colonial Marines, ect. These are the objectively bad games, and even Ride to Hell has a sort of Tommy Wiseau appeal to it beyond that.

But games like Dragon Age II, Call of Duty, Mass Effect 3, or Metroid Other M aren't obectively bad games. They run fine, they don't glitch out into a non-functioning state, they're coded well, and everything runs properly. Anything considered bad about them is usually on the gameplay design and story front.

Getting on Dragon Age 2's case for "Fanfiction Writing" which isn't actual critique as it doesn't mean anything, or getting on Mass Effect 3's case for giving Shepard more Auto Dialogue or having an ending you thought was crap, these are not objective methods of criticizing a game. The quality of the story is entirely up to the taste of the person experiencing it. Same goes with the gameplay. You might find someone who liked the original Dragon Age's combat, you might find someone who liked Dragon Age 2's combat more.

That's the difference between objectivity and subjectivity in game design. The objective qualities are Performance, coding, severity of glitches, crashing, CTD's, ect. The subjective qualities are gameplay design, story, writing, character design, sound design, aesthetic design, ect. The things that gamers complain the most about.

You can sing the praises of The Elder Scrolls and scream the curses of Call of Duty, but at least Call of Duty won't crash to the desktop if you lean on it too hard. And Half Life might have the most stable engine ever constructed and doesn't have the graphical glitches and clipping issues that Mass Effect does, but Mass Effect has gameplay and story made by actual devs and not retailers on an ego trip.

Devs will make what people want. Just because they're not making what you want doesn't mean that people are praising terrible games. That a "Stop Liking What I Don't Like" attitude, and the gaming community has too much of it.

You're not breaking up a circle jerk with the cold tyranny of economics. You're passive aggressively whining about people not liking the same games you like and trying to hide it as an intellectual discussion.

Cybylt:
I'm not sure objective means what you think it means, because everything you put your little (objective) tag under are subjective things. Like calling something a work of art, that is most definitely subjective.

OK, you do have a point.

I could have typed something like "My opinion, backed by over 20 years of gaming and 8 years of work in graphic and UX design, is that The Wither 2 has more interesting level design, superior visuals and better realized interface. On the other hand, I find DA2 significantly lacking in all of those areas." And then I could've spend a good deal of time explaining why in detail.

Well, I didn't do that. I agree that it's entirely possible that there are people who believe the opposite, even if to me expertise and common sense would dictate otherwise. People are entitled to their preferences.

My point in the end remains the same. Both games got released fairly close together, are technically in the same genre, and promise a mature setting where your choices matter for the progression of the story. Then you have Greg, not as a consumer but from the position of a reviewer, praising the flawed DA2 to high heavens and giving it a perfect score, while scoring TW2 30% lower with the only seemingly quantifiable argument given for the case being that the game is more difficult and doesn't hold your hand at the beginning.

Thanks whatever-higher-power that Greg didn't get to do a Dark Souls review.

I like how Jim is making mini-Willem sentient.

Why would you even get angry over this? I didn't even know this was a 'thing'...
But my guess is that those spoilsports are the same bullies who would stomp on your juicebox in elementary because they think canned soda is better.

keniakittykat:
Why would you even get angry over this? I didn't even know this was a 'thing'...
But my guess is that those spoilsports are the same bullies who would stomp on your juicebox in elementary because they think canned soda is better.

great job comparing reasonable concern/critique and natural emotional response on THE INTERNET to the spite of schoolyard bullying.

ccdohl:

Thanatos2k:

One addendum though: Hating a review/review score is not quite the same as hating someone else because they like something. That perfect Dragon Age 2 score IS a travesty, not because the reviewer liked the game, but because professional reviews are supposed to be more than just whether the reviewer liked it or not, they're supposed to be a rational objective analysis of the components at play, and any objective analysis of the quality of Dragon Age 2 will find it wanting.

Ding ding ding. AAAAAAAaaaaand Jim is shown to be wrong on page one. Good show sir. (ma'am?)

Well, while the three of us clearly agree that reviews should contain what objective analysis is possible, this not necessarily the case. Jim could have a spin-off review site whose only metric is whether or not prawns are depicted in the game. 5 stars out of 5 for games containing prawns, 0 stars out of 5 if absent. As long as the metrics are clear and the reviewer sticks to them then it doesn't matter.

Some reviewers are purely subjective reviewers. Some "try" for pure objectivity.

I think it's a legitimate belief that a good review has a healthy mixture of both, but this isn't a given. Dragon Age 2 should not have gotten a perfect score. But sometimes the subjective preference of a game outweighs the objective qualms. I think DA 2 ruined a franchise. Most people seem to agree, but if they liked it so much as to ignore the many qualms most of us have with it then I understand. Skyrim is one of my all-time favorite games but objectively the original vanilla release is buggier than a hobbo's hat that he uses to store his mayonnaise in the summer time.

Rakschas:

keniakittykat:
Why would you even get angry over this? I didn't even know this was a 'thing'...
But my guess is that those spoilsports are the same bullies who would stomp on your juicebox in elementary because they think canned soda is better.

great job comparing reasonable concern/critique and natural emotional response on THE INTERNET to the spite of schoolyard bullying.

Hey, as long as those people behave like little kids, I will continue to compare the two.

keniakittykat:

Rakschas:

keniakittykat:
Why would you even get angry over this? I didn't even know this was a 'thing'...
But my guess is that those spoilsports are the same bullies who would stomp on your juicebox in elementary because they think canned soda is better.

great job comparing reasonable concern/critique and natural emotional response on THE INTERNET to the spite of schoolyard bullying.

Hey, as long as those people behave like little kids, I will continue to compare the two.

except they dont.

also let us not confuse unprovoked humiliation with provoked anger.
anger in turn is not an emotion that is exclusive to children, it is rather a natural human responce to a percievend injustice towards oneself or to what one holds dear.
why the backlash to a game critics rating is in many cases very much the later has been explained in great detail in this thread. i can not do your reading for you, so this is a far as i go.

ShakerSilver:

Edl01:
I also would love to go off about how Bioshock infinite gets tons of hate for being a corridor shooter when the exact same people are waiting in suspence for the next half life game.

STOP.

Stop that right now. You're making a huge generalization that is just plain wrong. Lumping all critics together and dismissing as hypocrites is incredibly petty. You're dismissing any valid criticism in that way, and killing any possible legitimate discussion of the game. And at least Half-Life respects the player's intelligence enough to give them more than 2 weapons and some health packs.

You missed the part where I said:

Edl01:
But I feel that would be horribly off topic and just asking to start an argument with someone. So I'll save it for another video.

Although I still don't get everyones issue with the 2 weapon system. In a game with upgrades its not like you ever actually use more weapons than the two you upgraded throughout the game :P

chikusho:

Thanatos2k:

chikusho:

Your enjoyment of a game is closely tied to its quality.

But is that even necessarily true? Is your enjoyment of a movie closely tied to its quality? Because I know a hell of a lot of bad movies I loved.

And there are a hell of a lot of movies of very high (objectively measurable) quality that are awful.

If you love these bad movies, they inhibit qualities that are successful in being enjoyable to you.

But even in bad movies there are things that make a good or bad "bad" movie. Go watch RedLetterMedia's "Best of the Worst" series, or http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1144539/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

There IS a quantifiable difference! There is skill in making an enjoyable bad movie!

I remember making a comment on Youtube about how Saints Row IV was my game of the year. Cue a bunch of people saying I'm an idiot and that GTAV beats SRIV out of the park. Funny thing is that I played GTA V, and yeah it is good, but SRIV was my goty still, because that game gave me more joy and entertainment and laughs than GTAV ever did.

For some reason, rage seems to be superfluous within the gaming community. I don't know why, though I do have an idea. But as is, I can't understand why people get so bothered by what other people think. Just, why? I understand that we are social creatures that crave agreement and interaction, but I can't understand why whether someone else likes a game or not is any cause for anger. Contempt maybe, while certainly not good to have and disgusting on some level, is understandable - that they are pleased by such a crap game. But outright anger is something else entirely.

Thanatos2k:

chikusho:

Thanatos2k:

But is that even necessarily true? Is your enjoyment of a movie closely tied to its quality? Because I know a hell of a lot of bad movies I loved.

And there are a hell of a lot of movies of very high (objectively measurable) quality that are awful.

If you love these bad movies, they inhibit qualities that are successful in being enjoyable to you.

But even in bad movies there are things that make a good or bad "bad" movie. Go watch RedLetterMedia's "Best of the Worst" series, or http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1144539/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

There IS a quantifiable difference! There is skill in making an enjoyable bad movie!

Yeah.. thank you for getting my point, I guess?
Or did you quote me unintentionally?

Jimothy Sterling:
**snip**

Indeed. I really don't understand why people feel the need to attack other people for liking a game they dislike.

I have no issue discussing why I do or do not like a game, but why all the pointless anger?

Anyway, once again, I thank the gods for you, Jim Sterling. Excellent video.

I think however that the real problem is simply that gamers don't trust reviewers anymore. Reviewers in the past just have damaged the trust of gamers everywhere so damn much that gamers ignore the opinion of the reviewer and think that everything they do is crap.

I guess its due to the following reasons:
1: They have to rely on game publishers to get products. This makes people think that reviewers are bribed to give good scores.
2: They don't play every game (so not doing what they want people to believe they do). How can someone trust them?
3: The internet has given more notoriety to smaller reviewer groups, who work independently and make clear that they choose what they review, thus aspiring confidence to there audience and making them more sceptical towards professional reviewers

But I guess this episode just shows how far that hatred has gone.

When I'm looking up reviews to decide if I want to buy a game, It's more useful to me to have reviewers that share my tastes. That doesn't mean all reviewers have to share my opinions on a game, nor should they. It just means I will never look to Greg Tito as a source for the quality of a game. He clearly does not share my idea of fun, his rankings and opinions differ wildly from mine, so I merely won't take his review (most of the time I won't even read em actually) of a game into account.

People can call that "holding it against him" or whatever, but I don't think I should be obligated to respect his opinion/review of a game, since his tastes are obviously not mine.

Darkmantle:
When I'm looking up reviews to decide if I want to buy a game, It's more useful to me to have reviewers that share my tastes. That doesn't mean all reviewers have to share my opinions on a game, nor should they. It just means I will never look to Greg Tito as a source for the quality of a game. He clearly does not share my idea of fun, his rankings and opinions differ wildly from mine, so I merely won't take his review (most of the time I won't even read em actually) of a game into account.

People can call that "holding it against him" or whatever, but I don't think I should be obligated to respect his opinion/review of a game, since his tastes are obviously not mine.

Yeah, I actually even have reviewers that I don't like that I follow purely because their choices are consistently off. "Yeah, get this one" translates pretty well into me not wanting to have it.

As long as the reviewer is consistent and you can relate their reviews to your own choices, then they are useful. Then you get people like Jim or Ben who are genuinely entertaining as well and that's the best of all worlds.

chiefohara:

Pedro The Hutt:

BlumiereBleck:
Wait....people didn't like The Saboteur?

No one in Ireland did with the obviously American voice actor's terrible accent. ;D

Ahh i wouldn't say that, quite a few of us forgave the accent. I couldn't help but laugh when i heard the main character screaming 'Shiiiiiiitee" as he fell of a building

The only Irish character that really annoyed us was 'Irish' in Red dead redemption and even then the game was so superb that we just got over it.

Hah, fair enough, my partner at the time was Irish, she was turned off enough by the accent in the trailers and preview videos of the Saboteur to not want to go anywhere near the game. So it definitely turned off some.

This episode actually made me feel a bit better. When people attack me for saying I loved Final Fantasy 13 or demand that I provide them with justification for having the audacity to like something they and many others didn't, it's only because they were jealous of me

Cybylt:

Those games aren't the same genre though. DMC(1, 3 and 4) Bayonetta, and maybe Ninja Gaiden are stylish action games (also known as CUHRAAAAZEEE Games) while God of War is a hack and slash more in the vein of Dynasty Warriors with a bunch of window dressing to make people think they aren't playing Dynasty Warriors... and everyone totally bought it. And DmC is in the latter category.

Just with less enemies at a time. Yeah, fair enough. It is a pretty shit example next to Bayonetta and Ninja Gaiden. As I said though, I haven't played the game, so if DMC is really in the latter category, that's unfortunate. Did they simplify mechanics or combat or something?

Banzaiman:
For some reason, rage seems to be superfluous within the gaming community. I don't know why, though I do have an idea. But as is, I can't understand why people get so bothered by what other people think. Just, why? I understand that we are social creatures that crave agreement and interaction, but I can't understand why whether someone else likes a game or not is any cause for anger. Contempt maybe, while certainly not good to have and disgusting on some level, is understandable - that they are pleased by such a crap game. But outright anger is something else entirely.

To me, the anger in the 'gaming community' (if such a term holds water) is far from unique. For other ridiculous examples of rage, I need look no further than any news website that allows user comments. A good example is my home state's NJ.com, where nearly every article gets followed by vicious political diatribe, name-calling, racial slurs, threats of violence, and so on. It's downright barbaric.

Even within my relatively passive hobby of discussing modern classical music on internet groups, there's often outbursts where a person's behavior goes from zero to frothing in an instant.

The only way I can explain it to myself is that it's human 'blowback' from the changes to social life wrought by technological developments that grow and change degrees of magnitude faster than the human psyche.

In other words, I feel like it's symptomatic of a culture of people who are increasingly out-of-touch with their own individual beings. Rather than looking inward to address questions of personal well-being, the whole focus of their life is on some context of everybody else falling into line in some way. The problem with this is obviously that people never fall into line for long, and the resultant frustrated idealism is a quick route to anger at one's own impotence. I've often seen the term 'extrovert ideal' bandied about. Essentially, technology and social-networking has brought us to a point where even the most introverted sorts are being dragged along and bullied by this force. What results is a culture of mutant extroverts (i.e. people who righteously suck at dealing with others civilly but simultaneously cannot pull themselves away for long enough to reflect on how they're behaving). At the same time this rampant social interdependency is growing, all sorts of market forces and high-capitalist ethos and propaganda are still working their own divide-and-conquer magic on everybody, spreading obsolete Baby Boomer ideals about how people need to 'get theirs' and compete towards 'being number one!'. The combination of these forces is a recipe for widespread and atomized sociopathy that, over time, may land us all in a totalitarianism that reaches from the micro- to the macro-scale of social reality.

People are just mad cause they have no happiness in their lives and you're ballin' it up with happiness bro. Keep it up, people getting angry when you make a statement is a win in my books. I'd rather an honest person than a shill.

I feel like a lot of it really is just people not being mad at the reviewer, but wanting to give their two cents of what they think about a game. And if they don't like the game, it can sometimes flow into their two cents about the game, and then it displaces on a person who likes it as well. It's that person who liked the game that brought up the game they did not like, so it is their fault that the rage flows through(I don't actually believe this, I just see that as an underlining feeling that some of these people have, learn some damn self control).

Whenever one person gives their opinion, another person wants to add to the discussion, and there is nothing wrong with that in general. In fact, there is no reason why you even have to act pleasantly towards a game you don't like, so if you need to rage, rage against the game itself, however, after the opinions get out there the mud slinging begins because they realize neither will budge on their actual opinion and simply sit their like brick wall, so the only follow up they can take is "quick, insult their sexuality!"

At the end of the day, the fact that it happens is little surprising, and the reason why there is so much more toxicity with these discussions now because there are so many games that people are just split on. While we know the industry is the one fucking us over by making the vast amount of clones of games we find dull, we assume the industry is much more stuck in its way than one fan. The industry is a giant entity, soulless and uncaring of the actual cares of fans, the fans however are human beings, in which case you can relate to them, and also cut them down.

It's not right, but it still has logical steps behind it.

MeChaNiZ3D:

Cybylt:

Those games aren't the same genre though. DMC(1, 3 and 4) Bayonetta, and maybe Ninja Gaiden are stylish action games (also known as CUHRAAAAZEEE Games) while God of War is a hack and slash more in the vein of Dynasty Warriors with a bunch of window dressing to make people think they aren't playing Dynasty Warriors... and everyone totally bought it. And DmC is in the latter category.

Just with less enemies at a time. Yeah, fair enough. It is a pretty shit example next to Bayonetta and Ninja Gaiden. As I said though, I haven't played the game, so if DMC is really in the latter category, that's unfortunate. Did they simplify mechanics or combat or something?

Both.

DMC1 still sets the standard for enemies since;
1 - All enemies are actually on the offensive a lot.
2 - All enemies have a wide variety of moves. The basic enemy has crowd control, front and back grapples, a charge, and three or four standard attacks for crap sake, and that has yet to be seen again.
3 - They'll fight dirty, even in 3 and 4 the enemy who will attack you while you're focused on another are few and far between. Ninja Gaiden lies somewhere in between with this, enemies will take turns but they're still not just sitting around watching you kill their buddy.

And 3 and 4 downgraded enemies from there but made up for it with the Styles and the incredibly high skill ceilings.

But DmC toned down both enemy threat and severely lowered the skill ceiling while not making the bar of entry a whole lot different when you consider the easy modes of previous games. So, issues with it include...
1 - Enemies drop aggro once they're off camera
2 - Styles gone, replaced with Heavenly Sword style strong but slow or quick but weak Demon and Angel trigger hold system. Fans of Royalguard and Trickster were especially let down by this as these two styles offered incredibly different ways to play.
3 - The style meter is effectively rendered useless. In previous games it went up based on how long you can chain combos and repeat attacks had diminishing returns on score unless you put enough attacks between uses. In DmC is it purely damage based, meaning attaining and keeping SSS rank is just three heavy attacks away.
4 - They removed the lock on for some reason and the auto-aim can get a bit weird at times. This also changed Stinger from R1+Forward Triangle to doubletap forward triangle and though I guess it's more down to preference but it made a bread and butter combo starter kind of awkward to pull off.
5 - Removed choice. When most people think choice they think dialog but in this case I mean freedom of play, in old titles some weapons had an elemental bonus damage but they were never necessary, allowing for the player a myriad of options. In DmC you have color coded enemies who can only be damaged while in Angel or Demon mode. Combine that with the removal of styles and you go from tons of possible ways of dealing with any encounter versus either the sole difference between weapon choice, or you're railroaded onto a singular weapon, the angel mode scythe or the demon mode axe.

They've done a good job of making it LOOK like the mid-level play of an older title (with sword master style) but there's a huge gap in execution and options.

In an odd twist, they wound up kind of making the new Dante something that may appeal more to japan by giving him those few angsty back story cutscenes and "I'm gonna be human's protector," ending instead of the straight up silly and totally aware of it Dante of 3 and 4.

Onto the good, the art style of the limbo levels is pretty nice, and it can look like you're doing pretty complex combos even though you're hitting three buttons one at a time. And... uhhh... pffff... some of those grunts and shouts Dante does are pretty funny, but probably not in the way they intended. They're these super flat, "Aaaaaaaaa.." it's so out of place in the sound effects that I can't help but chuckle.

I also give them some points for bringing back "Flock off, feather face!" as a quip.

So, combine that with the situation of the press and dev team being assholes by stating and re-stating the only problem people have was the hair... and you have a pretty justly frustrated fan base. Really, the game is competent as a western hack and slash but many journalists, Jim included were hailing it as some kind of peak of the medium that was unjustly struck down by shallow fans when it just isn't, as if they were doing it simply to spite the backlash.

Or maybe they just got too involved in the initial defense against the more shallow backlash that they found themselves in a situation where they couldn't just say "Eh it was alright," because that'd make them look bad. There was even an article berating fans of the series for the game failing to meet sales estimates.

Can anyone name all the interesting creatures that Jim had in this video? I'm seriously curious, and it would save me a bunch of time doing screen caps and reverse image searches. Q_Q

Order in which I hate people

People who Don't like what I like = People who like what I Don't like > People who like what I like

No one can destroy something you love more that someone who loves it too.

Mikeyfell:
But Jim, Mass Effect 3 did tangibly negatively effect my life. It was so bad it broke the last vestige of childlike wonder my cold black jaded heart was clinging to.
I am literally less of a person because that game exists

Your misled delusions in the goodness of the world were weakness.

Mass effect 3 freed you from the shackles of your false optimism, you should be thankful.

 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
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here