Jimquisition: Gamer Entitlement

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

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.

Yeah, with the earlier youtube copyright stuff there were people saying the same kind of stuff about other people too.

Ironically, the people they were talking about, TB likely included, were the ones least likely to be hurt by the whole thing in the long run. ;p

lord.jeff:
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?

Yo man. 0.0 Don't open this spoiler....

nejiblue:

:D Jim. We have found your greatest fan. Someone who loves your work so much, and has enough passion and drive to parody the behavior you're talking about today for everyone's entertainment!

This great WONDERFUL person, took time out of their day, to fake complain about a 10 second part of your show, and all for our educational benefit!

Thank God for you, Jim! And thank YOU, for inspiring such faithful and selfless fans! ;D

reiniat:

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.

Yea, there are trolls for sure. She doesn't have comments on her youtube videos, so it's not there. Honestly, I think it's mostly manufactured. We keep hearing that there are hordes of psychos who just want her gone and think that threatening to rape her is a good thing to do, but I never see or hear anything from them. I've just seen some videos of people countering her points and being critical of her in valid, if not always sound, ways.

Goliath100:

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

Where is the line between acceptable and unacceptable mechanics?

Specifically for the Mass Effect series ?
Think about that: On the box of the first game of the series,the description on the back of the box cover names the game a "RPG".On the box of the third game of the series,in the description on the back side of the cover the game is described as a "Shooter".
Why do you think EA changed the description of the latest game,and what does that actually means ?

xPixelatedx:
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.

People getting mad about reviews is pretty damn pathetic. I mean, they are just reviews, they don't affect the actual games at all.

The ME3 scenario is the opposite of how it usually goes, though - where people whine about their favorite game being given a less-than-perfect score, who will bitch and moan about a game being given an 8/10 for Jim's sake!

ccdohl:
I've just seen some videos of people countering her points and being critical of her in valid, if not always sound, ways.

Have you completely missed almost every Escapist thread that mentioned her? (Rhetorical question. I know you haven't as you have commented on them.)

In this very thread someone comments that the mention of her name might open the gates of Hell. Another post in this thread calls her a bitch and complain that Jim and Bob even mention her.

Doesn't sound like the the valid, logical, criticism that you are claiming it is.

Stavros Dimou:

Goliath100:

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

Where is the line between acceptable and unacceptable mechanics?

Specifically for the Mass Effect series ?
Think about that: On the box of the first game of the series,the description on the back of the box cover names the game a "RPG".On the box of the third game of the series,in the description on the back side of the cover the game is described as a "Shooter".
Why do you think EA changed the description of the latest game,and what does that actually means ?

Hang on, you're making an argument on the basis of the copy on the back of a box?

Regardless of what you think about the mechanics of ME3, the word 'shooter' on the back of the box is advertising, nothing more, nothing less. Pick up any game, book, or movie, and tell me that the blurb on the box is an accurate description of the thing itself.

EA wanted to try to capture a different audience. Anyone interested in RPGs would already know what the game was, and probably already be playing it. But put 'shooter' on the cover, and maybe someone who wouldn't have given it a second glance will pick it up.

Any anyway, regardless of the endings, were the mechanics in ME3 really that different from ME2?

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

No. People who say the answer is always between two extremes are just afraid of taking sides. Sometimes it's between two extremes, sometimes it isn't.

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

The people who send her death and rape threats and the people who flag all her videos in droves, in an attempt to get them taken down. I also know of at least one fake Feminist Frequency Twitter account that exists to try and damage her reputation

ccdohl:

Yea, there are trolls for sure. She doesn't have comments on her youtube videos, so it's not there. Honestly, I think it's mostly manufactured. We keep hearing that there are hordes of psychos who just want her gone and think that threatening to rape her is a good thing to do, but I never see or hear anything from them. I've just seen some videos of people countering her points and being critical of her in valid, if not always sound, ways.

It may not be too extreme, but within this very thread there is a entitled child who went on a mind-numbingly stupid against her. So it is there. It's just died down since the beginning, where it was really bad. Especially during the first kick starter campaign.

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.

Yep amazingly germain to politics as well.

Too many people result to flames or insults and go defcon 12 and want that thing gone. when we should call out bs when we see it, but respect other rights to have a different outlook and if your going to debate try to stay on facts and not cut and run with the bottom barrel trolls.

I would say another place where I could call it gamer entitlement is when people feel that they have the right to beat a game. I'm not talking about the types of games where you can't win because of a bug or because you don't want to do microtransactions, but a game that is too hard for you. There are a lot of people that I see criticize perfectly fine game like Donkey Kong Country Returns or Wonderful 101 because they're too hard. That drives me up the wall. As if every game needs to have a golden tanuki suit or flutter wings if you fail at a level too many times.

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

The Radical Republicans were an extreme because they believed people of all races should have equal rights and everyone who tried to unlawfully take those rights away should be punished. Sometimes the extreme is the answer.

Jim is wrong when he claims that criticising the opinions of game critics is being entitled. If a critic claims a game is the "game of the year" but it turns out that this game is awful then anyone who relied on the critics appraisal has every right to criticise the critic for providing such a misleading review. This is especially true when the critics are paid to review a game on behalf of their audience, since they're not doing their job properly. Examples of this are reviews of games such as Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age 2, and Spore where the majority of critics praised these games but the majority of people who bought these games hated them. These gamers aren't being entitled for criticising the critics, they're just annoyed that the critics didn't do their job.

Finally it's not being entitled to point out that Anita's arguments are heavily skewed rather than informative and that due to their inaccuracies these videos adding nothing to a debate.

I will tell you what.
"GAMER ENTITLEMENT" is a behavior that is a reaction to another behavior,one of publishers and developers.
Let's see how it happens.

The root of the problem is a mentality a lot of publishers and developers have that the NAME of a video game is able to sell a game alone.It has become a common tactic and mentality across DEVS,and PUBS that whenever they are to make a new game,whatever that game might be,they will pick up the title of ANOTHER game,just for the sake of MAKING PEOPLE BELIEVE THE NEW GAME WILL HAVE SOME RELATION TO AN OLD ONE,WHILE IT'S NOT NECESSARY THE CASE.
It's quite simple: They make their own game,the game they want to sell,but because they are not sure it's going to sell they pick up the name of an already existing series with the hope that some nostalgic fools will hand over their money to buy a game that plays completely differently and has barely or not at all any resemblance with what the TITLE they picked up is associated with.

It's happening everywhere.
PERFECT DARK ZERO played nothing like PERFECT DARK.
DUKE NUKEM FOREVER played nothing like DUKE NUKEM 3D
WOLFENSTEIN 2009 played nothing like RETURN TO CASTLE WOLFENSTEIN
DUNGEON KEEPER MOBILE plays nothing like DUNGEON KEEPER 1,2
PREY 2 looked nothing like PREY 1
And the list goes on...

I could keep writing of examples.
The thing is,when a game is BAD and the DEVS/PUBS know that,they will pick a name of a good series in hopes that they will get some sales from the nostalgic fans.

And that's when the so called "PLAYER ENTITLEMENT" comes in.
It's a natural reaction to being fooled and lied. It's what you get when someone realizes that all the values,standards,attributes,and characteristics associated with a beloved brand aren't there on something that supposedly is part of the brand. It feels like getting convinced to buy an iPhone only to discover that it's not an iPhone,but a Chinese imitation that functions nothing like the original,and breaks one or two days after you bought it by itself.

If in the near future more DEV/PUBs are going to keep to naming GREEN games "RED" to convince people who like red to buy them even though they are actually green,there is going to be a lot of "GAMER ENTITLEMENT" anger on the internets.
If though DEV/PUBs become more honest and either name their new games a new name,or whenever they pick a pre-existing brand they carry on the distinctive features and standards of this brand,that people came to associate with this brand,then there will be no "GAMER ENTITLEMENT RAGE".

Pretty simple.

Aardvaarkman:

ccdohl:
I've just seen some videos of people countering her points and being critical of her in valid, if not always sound, ways.

Have you completely missed almost every Escapist thread that mentioned her? (Rhetorical question. I know you haven't as you have commented on them.)

In this very thread someone comments that the mention of her name might open the gates of Hell. Another post in this thread calls her a bitch and complain that Jim and Bob even mention her.

Doesn't sound like the the valid, logical, criticism that you are claiming it is.

So what are we talking about? Any clown that posts on a forum? Trolls are trolls. Not much can be done about that. I haven't seen a lot of them, and calling someone a bitch or saying, truthfully, that mentioning her sparks arguments doesn't mean that you want her to disappear or have her videos removed.

I'm mostly referring to articles and youtube videos about the subject. I just think that she gets too much credit for what she has said, and any time someone speaks about her without being critical, they perpetuate the myth that all of her critics are just angry trolls talking about rape.

A world where I can say that I love the Fina Fantasy 13 series and that I was satisfied with the Mass Effect 3 ending, without being attacked? Do I dare to dream?

Anita Sarkeesian is pushing a political goal and has nothing to do with the actual health of gamers.

I've seen all her videos and unless she releases another video proving otherwise, her intent is not the benefit of gamers but rather a political agenda akin to that of Jack Thompson.

Unless you agree with Jack Thompson Anita has no valid argument.

Well yeah, we're talking about random clowns because those are the gamers and this is an article about gamer entitlement. Yeah, most of the mainstream press ignores and any prominent critic about her would resort to rape threats (I doubt any critic could really get away with that with anyone) but we aren't talking about them. We are talking a section of the gaming community that treats her that way. If that's not what you were talking about then fine, but that's what we were talking about and we think it's a problem. Again, if you don't think that's a problem then fine, because then that would mean an entirely different argument.

I allow myself to hate only three people at a time. At this time, the list only has one name: Electronic Arts.

Years ago, the company accused me of lying, of being stupid, and/or of participating in criminal activity when I presented them a valid support issue on a legally purchased product. Because of the copy protection they had installed on their games, I was unable to use the product I had purchased. They refused to acknowledge the issue, would not fix the problem, and would not issue a refund on the purchase. To date, this issue is still outstanding.

So yes, I feel I am entitled to compensation and to an apology.

In the meantime, I have done everything in my power, including peer pressure, coercion, and bully tactics to force potential customers away from EA. I'm proud of the fact that I've been banned from EA forums. The warnings I have received here are mostly a direct result of my hatred for Electronic Arts. While I do not hate anyone who enjoys EA games, I am very much inclined to try changing their opinion.

Is that entitlement on my part? Sure. Is it justified? Well, you all tell me...

LameDuck:

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".

/snip

Precisely.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned D3, seeing as it was almost 1/3 of the footage in this video. And it's basically the same thing as ME3. People were so pissy about it because it wasn't Diablo 2. Set aside the RMAH and always online, that's what people hated about the game. But, (IMHO of course)It's really a good fun game. If D1 and D2 didn't exist, people wouldn't be half as bitchy about it as they are.

It's all about What People Want as opposed to what the publishers gave them.

I think holding up Erik Kain as an absolutist point of view is a misrepresentation, honestly. Having read his stuff since the ME3 debacle, he's been firm in his insistence that "gamer entitlement" is a wildly overused and misused term (not unlike the points Jim made himself) but never to the exclusion of basic common sense. I went back and re-read the "Pernicious Myth Of Gamer Entitlement" article Jim referenced to double-check and it is pretty one-sided but later articles better fleshed out his point of view as almost a mirror of Jim's. (He is a blogger for Forbes magazine, after all.)

Considering how he's been publicly and childishly derided as an unprofessional panderer by certain gaming journalists for taking a position that was unpopular amongst his peers (most of whom didn't know he existed prior to ME3) it would just be nice if people pumped the brakes a bit on using him as a poster boy. His actual opinion is more nuanced than he's been given credit for.

Silentpony:
snip

I think the entitlement Jim is referring to is the more extreme actions - like the attempted lawsuit. It's all wishy-washy opinion based, but general consensus seems to be that a lawsuit over a game ending might be pushing it a little. False advertising might have a stand, but in the end the only real damage is a very disappointing game and another coat of dark paint on what was an already pitch-black company to some.

Other than that, I'm totally with the unhappy customers on this one. Especially since EA had the nerve to release day one DLC made with some funding from the game itself - resources that could easily have been put toward a more dedicated ending. Unless my information on that is outdated.

Aardvaarkman:
People getting mad about reviews is pretty damn pathetic. I mean, they are just reviews, they don't affect the actual games at all.

People get annoyed because these reviews affect their decision to buy certain games. They get especially annoyed when a review caused them to spend a lot of money on a bad game.

ccdohl:

So what are we talking about? Any clown that posts on a forum? Trolls are trolls. Not much can be done about that.

I didn't see anything in the post on this thread indicating that it was a troll, and not genuine rage. You seem to be dismissing anyone who expresses hatred towards her as a simply a "troll" and that somehow means they don't count. It's similar to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Even if it was a troll, why does that make it not matter? The aim of trolls is to be hurtful and disruptive. With your logic, it seems that there can never actually be any hatred on the internet, because anyone who expresses hatred is labeled a troll, and therefore don't matter (for some reason I don't understand).

Trolls are scum. Pretending they don't matter is like sticking your head in the sand. Of course they matter.

ccdohl:
I haven't seen a lot of them, and calling someone a bitch or saying, truthfully, that mentioning her sparks arguments doesn't mean that you want her to disappear or have her videos removed.

But that's not what I was responding to. You said you had only seen people responding with valid criticisms. I responded with evidence from this very thread that that isn;t the case. Now you are changing your argument.

And how can you not think that all the people who complain about hearing her name on The Escapist don;t want her to disappear? How can you complain that the floods of people flagging her videos don't want them removed?

ccdohl:
I'm mostly referring to articles and youtube videos about the subject. I just think that she gets too much credit for what she has said, and any time someone speaks about her without being critical, they perpetuate the myth that all of her critics are just angry trolls talking about rape.

I don't think anybody ever claimed that all of her critics are angry trolls. But there certainly seems to be a lot of them. And even the most reasonable critics often seem to pepper their arguments with personal angles and tangential arguments that aren't really relevant, such as complaining about how much money she made on Kickstarter.

So, yeah, a lot of her "critics" really are just angry misogynists. And even the highest standards of rational criticism of her aren't that great.

Good episode...

Except the things Jim mentioned as "Gamer Entitlement" aren't inherently entitlement.

A person may want a certain thing and fight for it, but it doesn't mean the feel entitled to it. They may, but it's hard to prove.

I wish gamers would stop popularizing the misuse of words.

Great video.

As a someone who didn't enjoy ME3's ending, and especially didn't enjoy how Bioware handled the criticism, I was vocal, but not demanding. I never demanded my money back, I never demanded any info on the indoctrination theory be recognized by the writers, I never demanded a fix to the ending. I didn't even want any DLC. I just left. I left the BSN, I sold all my Mass Effect games, and haven't purchased an EA title since. I don't really feel that makes me an "entitled fanboi."

Vivi22:
No. People who say the answer is always between two extremes are just afraid of taking sides. Sometimes it's between two extremes, sometimes it isn't.

Can I get an example of that? Note: My counter argument will be (if any) that your example is not two extremes.

Speak of the devil...

The Apple BOOM:
The Radical Republicans were an extreme because they believed people of all races should have equal rights and everyone who tried to unlawfully take those rights away should be punished

Sorry, that is not an extreme because of the use of word; "unlawfully".

Stavros Dimou:

Goliath100:

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

Where is the line between acceptable and unacceptable mechanics?

Specifically for the Mass Effect series ?
Think about that: On the box of the first game of the series,the description on the back of the box cover names the game a "RPG".On the box of the third game of the series,in the description on the back side of the cover the game is described as a "Shooter".
Why do you think EA changed the description of the latest game,and what does that actually means ?

I was thinking in general, but even for ME, that is not specific enough.

uanime5:

People get annoyed because these reviews affect their decision to buy certain games. They get especially annoyed when a review caused them to spend a lot of money on a bad game.

Again, that's pretty weak. There are multiple reviewers out there, and review aggregation sites.

In any case, a review can't cause you to buy a game - that's your own personal decision. And if a game is "a lot of money" - then maybe you shouldn't be buying games? They are, after all, a luxury product that's totally discretionary.

I can see being disappointed in a game, but being angry about it just doesn't seem rational. If a game is enough to make you angry, then you might be better off either looking elsewhere for entertainment, or looking into anger management sessions.

This episode really stood out for me. I'm really glad to see Jim looking at both sides of the coin for any particular topic.

It goes both ways, sometimes gamers blow things way out of proportion and sometimes companies deserve to be called out for their bullshit.

By and large, nicely put, Jim.

One item, though, where I feel a need to make a distinction. If you're threatening a reviewer (or a game writer, or a programmer, or... whatever), that's just loathsome behavior, straight up. Don't do it.

But I do think there's some leeway where criticizing a reviewer's stance, even if it might seem to an outsider that you're attacking a reviewer for not having the same view as you do, might not be "entitled" behavior. A professional reviewer is, after all, allegedly doing a job- that job being to provide an informed opinion on a product, an opinion preferably informed and well-supported enough that it can help the consumer in putting together their own opinion and off of that make a choice as to whether the product is right for them.

If the reviewer simply fails to note features or facets that strongly influenced the customer's final opinion on the product, I think they have some right to be aggrieved about that, to feel perhaps that the reviewer hasn't done a very good job. Now as Jim says of the whole, this isn't an absolute; it's possible the customer is getting bent out of shape because the uniforms don't absolutely match the uniforms in the previous episode of the series, or the network play takes a few extra seconds to connect to the servers, or some other niggling point that for them makes the game a "0/10!!!!!!!!" but for the reviewer, and most people who play the game, simply went under the radar because it wasn't that important. But it's also possible the reviewer never played the multiplayer, or wasn't aware that the creators made promises that went unfulfilled, or didn't give heed to a widely-reported bug because they were one of the lucky few who never encountered it. Perhaps that isn't reason to try to destroy them and their career (mistakes happen, we're all human, etc.), but I'm not prone to say it shouldn't be "called out".

uanime5:
Jim is wrong when he claims that criticizing the opinions of game critics is being entitled. If a critic claims a game is the "game of the year" but it turns out that this game is awful then anyone who relied on the critics appraisal has every right to criticize the critic for providing such a misleading review. This is especially true when the critics are paid to review a game on behalf of their audience, since they're not doing their job properly. Examples of this are reviews of games such as Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age 2, and Spore where the majority of critics praised these games but the majority of people who bought these games hated them. These gamers aren't being entitled for criticizing the critics, they're just annoyed that the critics didn't do their job.

Finally it's not being entitled to point out that Anita's arguments are heavily skewed rather than informative and that due to their inaccuracies these videos adding nothing to a debate.

Unless it's literally unplayable (Game Tycoon 1.5 coming out with no .exe) no game is ever objectively awful. It's a matter of opinion, and if the critic believes that that's the GOTY then he should be allowed to say so. If it's different (i.e. they don't think it's goty and are being paid by the devs/publisher to say so) then you can criticize. (although I think in that situation the devs/publisher should get most of the blame)

I just... *sigh*

I find it so strange that games are just treated and viewed as 'products' by the gaming community - rather than embraced like in the forms of other creative media like Music/Art/Movies. Games are just 3d generated artworks with a narrative infused for entertainment. In no way would it ever be acceptable to start slandering record companies like 'EMI' or 'Roadrunner' like what the gaming community has done. Like with anything on the internet, people will always feel the need to justify their own little opinions and interests and whether or not they like a game becomes way more significant than it needs to be. Constructive Criticisms is valid, just don't confuse it as as 'customer's always right'. They aren't. The Internet does amplify negativity and when it carries more volume then more people start noticing which only just inspires Bandwagoning.

Just stop putting way too much weight on things unnecessarily. I can't wait until I stop hearing about EA or Activision, I just don't care anymore and it doesn't make you an expert of the Industry.

step1999:

uanime5:
Jim is wrong when he claims that criticizing the opinions of game critics is being entitled. If a critic claims a game is the "game of the year" but it turns out that this game is awful then anyone who relied on the critics appraisal has every right to criticize the critic for providing such a misleading review. This is especially true when the critics are paid to review a game on behalf of their audience, since they're not doing their job properly. Examples of this are reviews of games such as Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age 2, and Spore where the majority of critics praised these games but the majority of people who bought these games hated them. These gamers aren't being entitled for criticizing the critics, they're just annoyed that the critics didn't do their job.

Finally it's not being entitled to point out that Anita's arguments are heavily skewed rather than informative and that due to their inaccuracies these videos adding nothing to a debate.

Unless it's literally unplayable (Game Tycoon 1.5 coming out with no .exe) no game is ever objectively awful. It's a matter of opinion, and if the critic believes that that's the GOTY then he should be allowed to say so. If it's different (i.e. they don't think it's goty and are being paid by the devs/publisher to say so) then you can criticize. (although I think in that situation the devs/publisher should get most of the blame)

Bingo.

I'm really not sure exactly when or where "I don't like this" started becoming the same as "It's bad" amongst gamers. If you find that you don't agree with a reviewer on something, then 99.9% of the time it's just you not sharing their opinion. If you buy something based on someone else's opinion and don't like it, that's not their fault, that's yours for not doing more research of your own. If you somehow find yourself always disagreeing with every reviewer then maybe you should stop trusting professional reviews as a whole and wait for the game to release so you can gauge player opinion.

If critics work is uncriticizable, then that can only imply that it's impossible to be either good or bad. And thus there's no reason to employ any critics, since they can just link to a random metacritic user review and get something of equal worth.

But of course that's not true. Critics should deliver interesting reviews that help the consumer decide whether to purchase something, and if they fail at that they should be criticised.

Goliath100:

The Apple BOOM:
The Radical Republicans were an extreme because they believed people of all races should have equal rights and everyone who tried to unlawfully take those rights away should be punished

Sorry, that is not an extreme because of the use of word; "unlawfully".

See, you'd think that, but read up on them. They were considered extremists, and many thought of their ideas as ridiculous.

Stavros Dimou:

It's happening everywhere.
PERFECT DARK ZERO played nothing like PERFECT DARK.
DUKE NUKEM FOREVER played nothing like DUKE NUKEM 3D
WOLFENSTEIN 2009 played nothing like RETURN TO CASTLE WOLFENSTEIN
DUNGEON KEEPER MOBILE plays nothing like DUNGEON KEEPER 1,2
PREY 2 looked nothing like PREY 1
And the list goes on...

OCARINA OF TIME played nothing like A LINK TO THE PAST*
METROID PRIME played nothing like SUPER METROID*
MARIO 64 played nothing like SUPER MARIO WORLD
GOLDENEYE played nothing like WHATEVER CRAPPY JAMES BOND GAMES CAME OUT BEFORE IT
RESIDENT EVIL 4 played nothing like EVERY PREVIOUS RESIDENT EVIL

Franchises and series have to depart from their roots, otherwise those properties become stagnant. Many of the most acclaimed games of the modern era came about because developers weren't afraid to step out of the shadow of the past and do something different. We would never have gotten Mario 64 if Nintendo listened to opinions like this. And sometimes updating a classic franchise goes horribly wrong- believe me, I'm a Silent Hill fan, I know all about that. But people still have to try.

If they didn't we'd just get an endless cycle of the same thing over and over again, with slight variations in story and gameplay. Not only would customers get bored with this eventually, the developers themselves would get tired of making them. That's something a lot of people often seem to forget, just because you want something doesn't mean developers have to make it.

Hell, in at least two of these examples you're making comparisons with games that came out well over a decade ago. I would hope a modern incarnation of a franchise wouldn't play much like something that came out when PCs were still using floppy drives.

There's only one real criticism you can lay at the feet of all of those games you listed: they're all terrible. And they're terribly because they're *bad games*, not because

*(Some people are probably going to take issue with a few of these, and while it's true that OoT and Metroid Prime held onto a lot of gameplay structures from their 2D predecessors, there were enough changes made that the experience of playing them still felt very different)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 54106)