Jimquisition: Gamer Entitlement

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Gamer Entitlement

Tackling the myths and misusage of so-called Entitlement in the gaming world.

Watch Video

I'm glad to see that someone is willing to take the customer's side, when they're right.

Attacking individuals because you disagree with them is wrong.

Attacking groups of players when you disagree with them is wrong.

Calling out a company who releases a steaming pile of crap is right.

Know thyself - that almost Socratic Jim. Alas, possessing self knowledge of that degree is a rare thing. All us mortals can do is try and aspire to it.

Right here on the Escapist I've seen people hoping that FUN succeed in their recent attack on TB, and not just in their attempt to get his video of their game removed, but in removing every video he has ever made. Why? Because these people don't like TB.

Pretty much fits with Jim's definition of gamer entitlement, that.

I thought the video was horrible enough when you used the forbidden word but then you took it even further by naming she who most not be named. Jim are you trying to open the gates of hell?

mjharper:
Right here on the Escapist I've seen people hoping that FUN succeed in their recent attack on TB, and not just in their attempt to get his video of their game removed, but in removing every video he has ever made. Why? Because these people don't like TB.

Pretty much fits with Jim's definition of gamer entitlement, that.

I don't get that either. You're attacking someone's livelihood and if there's collateral damage done by the millions because of it, they don't care. They don't seem to understand how the world works, just that it revolves around them it feels like.

And as for the episode, well... YOU MADE A FALLACY. But you are right. However, with ME3... Well, I guess people just expected more of it. I mean, 3 whole games with 'their' shepard? Yea... And they weren't even tiny to begin with. You'd know a shitstorm would happen with an ending like that.

Isn't the answer alway between the two extremes? (Sometimes right next to one of them)

Thank you for being reasonable about this. I really expected worse.

I have been saying the same thing for a while now: a complaint about entitlement usually comes from an entitled person. be it a publisher that thinks they should have free reign to do whatever consumer unfriendly practice they want, the creator that thinks pleasing fans is the least important part of their job in lieu of pleasing themselves, or any social justice critic that wants everything put under the microscope but their own opinions, they're not any less people out to get everything they want than they think gamers are. From there, the attitude can entrench the entitlement because you stop treating people you want to change the opinions of as..well. people, and the angry backlash comes off as dodging the question. Why exactly did you like ME3's ending that I'm missing? Why should we be thrilled by always on DRM? Why is calling Call of Duty a Cancer, and lowering insults at those that play it Okay, but not Flappy Bird (I'm looking at you moviebob)? Why are concerns about feminist methodology unfounded? Answering questions might reach people. Acting indignant that people don't agree with you, or have different opinions and values, there's no other term but entitled, and you can't hold on to yours while expecting others to let go.

Althought I never attack critics pertaining to mass effect's ending I do understand why other people do.

People call out(and sometimes attack) critics about mass effect's ending not because they like the ending that we don't, but because they didn't point out the flaws of the endings.

The problem got nothing to do with writing or plot or artistic intergrity and everything to do with mechanics and what works in a game. For a game that claims to be an RPG and one that span 3 titles, gamers expect the endings (at least one of them) to reflect the efforts they put into the game and their choice to matter.

It's not that the endings plot wise was bad that people disagree with, but because it was bad for a GAME, specifically an RPG TRILOGY, mechanic wise.

So in the end critics got attack not because they say "I like the ending" but because they wasn't doing their fucking job and point out the flaw of the endings from a mechanical point of view.

Damn straight. The ending of Mass Effect 3 was a load of horse shit and sexism is alive and well in gaming. That being said, going off at people who like games that you don't...no just don't do that. Also people like Call of Duty, can we please stop getting on people for that?

Just remember to stay classy.

image

I don't really care how right you are, the moment you treat people like shit is the moment I stop listening.

Everything is moderation... oh god, did I quote Oscar Wilde, BLEH!

I agree with a lot of the points Jim made. I do think Publishers and their bought game critics use the term 'entitled' to alienate game reviews. But like the whole Mass Effect 3 shit? I'm not sure that WAS entitlement. As someone who was there since that game came out, having played an active part in the protest forums, I can tell you that was gamers demanding that the promises that were made by EA be kept. EA promised, what, 12+ different endings and in practice there were the infamous 3. Demanding the other 9 choices is NOT entitlement. That's just business. Call it whatever you want, but when we buy a game under the pretense of getting X, Y and Z, a contact has been offered and accepted. So when we don't get X, Y or Z and then complain...well that's not us asking for more than our due. That asking for what we paid for.

Imagine if this was any other genre or art medium. Imagine Paramount showing trailers for...I dunno, Iron Man 4. Showing an epic scene with a giant robot or spider or whatever! And you go see the movie only to find none of the scenes from the trailer are in the movie. You would be pissed off, not entitled. You would, rightfully so mind, feel ripped off!

Asking - nay - demanding game publishers keep the promises they make on games, promises made as a marketing campaign to get us to buy said games, is NOT being entitled.

ExtraDebit:
...but because it was bad for a GAME, specifically an RPG TRILOGY, mechanic wise. ...

Where is the line between acceptable and unacceptable mechanics?

I completely agree with everything you said.

I also think you're a entitled brat if you pirate a game and then complain that it isent very good.

I'm not sure attacking critics or even fans of games is entitlement. Often times, it's just people being dickheads. I mean, you can be both, but hate isn't necessarily a demand someone change their opinion, it's just hate because their opinion is different. However, demanding someone be fired for not thinking the same way on a game? Yeah, all the screw you.

mjharper:
Right here on the Escapist I've seen people hoping that FUN succeed in their recent attack on TB, and not just in their attempt to get his video of their game removed, but in removing every video he has ever made. Why? Because these people don't like TB.

Pretty much fits with Jim's definition of gamer entitlement, that.

How is that entitlement?
People being absolute a-holes maybe? But claiming they're expressing gamer entitlement? WTF.
Some people just want to see the world burn, but they don't go around claiming they're entitled to seeing that happen.

Thank god for you Jim! There's a big difference between making your opinion being heard and imposing your opinions on others. I think the ME3 thing was a mainly positive thing, people who felt cheated complained directly with EA and BioWare, the whole cupcake thing, for example, was great.

I think it does mostly come down the delivery of the message. As said in the video, there's nothing wrong with voicing your criticisms and opinions. In fact, fairly often, the "entitled" and the vocal critic have similar complaints, but it's in the delivery and expectation that the critic becomes the "entitled." If you take efforts to actually think about what you're saying, how to say it and what your expectations are, it's pretty easy to make complaints without coming across as an entitled petulant brat. That sort of approach is actually the basis of all professional criticism.

The other issue, as alluded to above, is expectations, and this ties into a lack of respect for a developers intentions. You are certainly in the right to voice whatever criticisms and complaints you want, but that doesn't mean you are owed a product that exactly matches your unique desires. You are owed a working game that falls in line with what the game was initially promoted to be. That's pretty much it. You can like or not like the final product but it not lining up with exactly what you want doesn't make it broken or bad, and it definitely doesn't make the company that made/published it evil. It just means that you don't like it. A developer can make whatever game they want to make with whatever IP they happen to be working on based on their own decisions and the guidance of their publisher should there be one. Just because there's a name attached to it that you're a fan of doesn't mean they have to make it based exactly on what you want or what that IP was in the past.

In short, be vocal with your complaints if that's what you want to be, but don't be a whiny brat when you do so and don't expect every game out there to be made exactly how you personally want it to be made.

Goliath100:
Isn't the answer alway between the two extremes? (Sometimes right next to one of them)

Not really. Sometimes the answer is one of the extremes sometimes it is somewhere in the middle, and sometimes it is something nobody has thought of yet because they are too busy being either extreme or an above-it-all moderate.

The thing is you can't really find out which position is correct when you have people attacking people rather than ideas or products.

I think the 'gamer entitlement' that comes out of consumers largely comes out of us consumers feeling gaining a bit of inferiority complex (and with how some companies are acting, it's becoming disturbingly more true), coupled with the ease of communication and anonymity in social media to vent frustration.

Being 'the little guy' in the story sucks, not just because it seems you don't hold a factor in a situation, but also because you don't have perspective on what's going on, either.

Us consumers[1] will definitely speak up when we feel slighted, but merely standing up for yourself isn't proper perspective (I'm looking at you, WGDF). Knowledge of the facts, or at least more than onetwo sides of an issue seems largely overlooked in some of the more fiery outbursts of the 'game community'.

I think we'd communicate information a bit better if we had some habits of humility; yes, as consumers, we're largely NOT going to be 'in the know' of things. Hell, for that matter, the game industry isn't, either (and could learn more than three things on that subject).

Anyway, good stuff, Jim.

[1] ...you know, I'm starting to think that the collective terminology can be a problem too...

Goliath100:
Where is the line between acceptable and unacceptable mechanics?

In the eyes of the beholder, mostly. When it comes to game design it's a matter of taste, so it's mostly a case of "I, as a consumer and fan of the series, did not like what you did with the ending of the game".

In the end all criticism is personal, as it's based on personal opinions. In the case of Mass Effect it went a bit further, as so many people had invested a lot of time - and themselves - into the series and felt cheated. I'm actually more surprised that people focused so much on the ending, instead of the Day 1 DLC which placed a story-important character behind a paywall. In the end he was way less important than previously believed, which was even worse considering he was a Prothean (which was plot-important since the first game and a huge part of the third game) and many fans who actually payed for the DLC felt doubly cheated.

Good video Jim. Normally I am wherry of bringing up Anita but you tied the whole discussion up perfectly. It doesn't really matter who fired the first shot, publisher or gamer but before you pull the trigger on that flame(war)-thrower you need to ask yourself if your target deserves the full extent of your rage. Blame is easy, self reflection is hard.

A long while back I made a response to an article on the escapist that covered some of the ground you just thread on.

Good to see someone addressing it, particularly someone who I often find hard to agree with. That said would you follow the logical leap I made and agree with the idea that this culture of "entitlement"/the reactionary attitudes towards it (regarding games journalists/commentators) are actually driving a lot of what people are most likely to be angry/entitled about?

I like Nintendo! and if you don't like them... well, that's completely okay!.

... Well, that wasn't as bad as I expected.

I don't think (or at least remember) I've ever blamed someone for liking something I don't like and as always, I'm with Jim on this one, doing so will only make you look like a spoiled brat and a petty narcisist.

Throwing shit at EA for releasing shitty games like SimCity or Battlefield 4, that's OK!, sending death threats to developers because they reduced the reloading time to a fraction of a second or to a game writer who said she "doesn't like games", that's downright despicable.

Is it so bad to dislike people(because there's a lot of them who like crappy media) or a game/media because its its bad? Its a situation that spirals out of control as we all get worse and worse media.

Mixed among things I agree with, I can't help but notice that Mr Sterling is basically saying that consumers complaining about other people is good, but complaining about people in his own profession isn't. I assume that's not quite what was intended, but it's hard to take it any other way.

Reviews are a product, just like games, and if they fail to inform appropriately, then they're bad products and should be complained about. Of course the basic standards of not being a total whatever just because you're on the internet apply, but they apply to complaints about games too. And of course it's subjective about whether a review is good or not, but again that applies to complaints about most things, unless I guess the product just plain doesn't work.

Who has tried to make Anita Sarkeesian's videos disappear? I mostly see people arguing against her with, like, logic and arguments.

Rednog:

mjharper:
Right here on the Escapist I've seen people hoping that FUN succeed in their recent attack on TB, and not just in their attempt to get his video of their game removed, but in removing every video he has ever made. Why? Because these people don't like TB.

Pretty much fits with Jim's definition of gamer entitlement, that.

How is that entitlement?
People being absolute a-holes maybe? But claiming they're expressing gamer entitlement? WTF.
Some people just want to see the world burn, but they don't go around claiming they're entitled to seeing that happen.

Um, did you watch the video?

"I think it's fucking entitled as fuck if you attack fans of games like Call of Duty, or Flappy Bird, or even Farmville, or any game you don't like. If you hate those games, and want to criticize them, please, go ahead, but once you start imposing your tastes on others, as many gamers have done before, you cross the line from reasonable to bratty. When you call COD fans a cancer because they enjoy a game you don't like, you justify the myth of the entitled gamer. As you do, and yes I'm bringing her up, when you try and drive people like Anita Sarkeesian out of the video game world because you don't like what she has to say, or the way she says it. You are acting as if you are owed a world in which a video you don't like doesn't get to exist. And that's just, well, it's not fair, it's not reasonable, and it's not a valid form of behaviour."

Since Jim himself extended 'gamer entitlement' to include wishing for a world in which videos you don't like don't exist, it's fair to make a comparison with those who wish to see all of TB's videos disappear just because they don't like what he has to say. Even at the cost of siding with such a despicable company as FUN seems to be.

You may disagree with Jim's definition, but all I was doing was pointing out that it is applicable in the FUN/TB controversy as well.

Personally, I think it's pretty damn entitled to expect the world to be moulded around your (I mean, in general, not you personally) opinion. Though it might also be called egotistic, or relativist, or solipsist. I remember a lecture I went to once where someone stood up and said, "None of you exist: you're all a figment of my imagination." And the lecturer responded, "No, you're just an arrogant bastard."

I suppose the crux of it could be: Feel free to get angry if it actually affects you.

A critic liking/disliking something you dislike/like (delete as appropriate) doesn't affect you.
A company trying to enact a harmful/shady business practice DOES affect you (or at least the gaming environment as a whole even if you don't personally buy the game).

Good show, Jim. It feels like this one's needed addressing for some time now.

I've never seen anyone mention the entitlement issue ever since the ME3 crisis. It pretty much went away a few weeks after the extended cut.

Jim, can you really blame people for being mad at the near perfect reviews for games like Mass Effect 3? I know you keep defending other game journalists, and keep saying there is no way anyone is giving anything but their honest opinion and they can have any opinion they want. The latter is most definitely true, but do you really blame people for not believing the former? The reason why I am using Mass Effect 3 is because that thing got pretty high reviews and good praise, while simultaneously being one of the most reviled and hated games ever made. The fallout was so bad the better business bureau was involved and certain places were offering full refunds for the game; even if it had been played. I've never even seen that before...

People were upset at the reviews, and yeah some people acted like spoiled brats and demanded they be changed. That I don't agree with, I'm with you there. People can have their stupid opinions, thats fine, but I don't think other people have to swallow BS either. I have no doubt Mass Effect 3 was potentially a good game for some people, maybe even great to others... but 90/100s, 100/100s, 9/10s and 10/10s!? Jim, are you telling me the kind of game that would create as much negative feedback as ME3 did is deserving of those scores? If a game that badly received is deserving of 10s and inane praise, then we might as well do away with game reviews all together, because there is no longer a use for them. That's why people are upset, this is a confirmation that A:'We are being bullshitted by people being paid to praise things', or B:The rating systems are so bizarre they don't even make any logical sense anymore, so they cannot be used for or applied to purchases of average consumers in any way'.

The two things I see that become pivotal around the concept of 'entitlement' are 'necessity' and 'intent'.

is/was it necessary?

What is the intent?

Often it seems like most gamers(or the generally highly vocal ones) do not take the time to look at those questions in terms of "as it pertains to the company" and only "as it pertains to the consumer". So you get this skewed visage of game companies doing everything with ill intent, even if said things are not really necessary.

On the other side, game publishers (and media folk alike) look at gamers and think they're "entitled" because they're just wanting everything their way (intent) and feel their personal satisfaction is always necessary.

Broad generalizations, I know. But what it boils down to is most folk don't even begin to consider (and I mean stand on the other side of the fence and force themselves to side with the other folk) the other side and try to give anyone the 'benefit of the doubt'.

I saw a lot of this back on an old game publisher board I frequented and it was an ongoing debate in regards to region locking, game design, choices of what to publish, decisions about localization, and all kinds of other game features/choices people disagreed with. And in each case you had 2 sides, the folk who took the time to consider things from a business/developer standpoint (who were labeled as blind company fan boys) and the other who wanted things how they should be and would rage against the companies in any fashion they could to be heard and try to enact change (usually called whiner-babies and entitled). Sadly there is a certain degree to legitimacy and reality on both sides, but..

Why is it most fans (since this is not strictly speaking a gamer unique trend) are so polarized?

ccdohl:
Who has tried to make Anita Sarkeesian's videos disappear? I mostly see people arguing against her with, like, logic and arguments.

It depends on where do you search, there are places where people really goes batshit against Anita.... Thats what i been told at least, ive never seen her being insulted in the internet sites i frequent (and that includes IGN). But i suppose she's insulted in places like Youtube, or the comment section of her own videos, maybe in Steam and perhaps in gaming sites like Yahoo! games (LOL), and of course 4chan, Reddit, NeoGaf... Ive also seen people in this site that think shes evil and she does her stuff totally on purpose, but nothing too heated.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 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