Yes / No ?
Yes
68.1% (213)
68.1% (213)
No
19.5% (61)
19.5% (61)
Other
11.8% (37)
11.8% (37)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Are you sick of Game industry sycophants (people who defend everything the industry does)?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Well all those things bother me some, but do you know what bothers me more?

1) The rampant abuse of developers by the publishers, the stuff we don't hear about much because the people involved are too afraid for their jobs to speak out. The terribly long hours, being underpaid, etc. We've only been hearing about some of it lately with some famous devs like Tim Shafer, Peter Molyneux, and Brian Fargo jumping ship into Indie development. The publisher stranglehold on the industry, creativity, artistic integrity, and the marketing department deciding which games get made and which games don't. It's basically the early Studio System of the early 1910s-40s and nobody (not fans and not journalists) seems to care.

2) Gaming Journalists in general being such blatant and unapologetic fanboys/girls. I understand that they want gaming and games to succeed, but they want it so badly that so many issues slide right by under their noses. Now, the majority aren't trained journalists and wouldn't know a story if it bit them in the rear end, but it's still incredibly frustrating as there are some real and legitimate abuses going on that should be brought to light.

3) Gaming Journalism bias. This goes hand in hand with the fanboy/fangirl one. Around 20% of the Escapists content tends to be BioWare, they are huge BioWare fanboys/fangirls. That bias filters into everything they do and say, including (sometimes) applying their bias for BioWare storytelling to the way they review other games. It's not always obvious, but it is there. (Take a look at the general snottiness exhibited over the entire Escapist staff over the ME3 ending fiasco, seriously.) Many gaming journalism sites have their own favorite horses in the race and that plus the advertising revenue they get from developers/publishers means that they come off sounding more like a PR branch than journalists.

4) Development Houses being blamed for things by fans that are, honest to god, the Publishers fault. It's not always their fault mind you, they are not the sole evil of the world, but it would be nice if more fans got themselves informed.

5) The fans don't want to hear it.

6) Myself.

I'd be less annoyed by them if they ever presented a more compelling argument than any of the following:

"That's the way it's always been."
"You agreed to their terms."
"They shouldn't because it's art."

All three of these arguments lack any substances and are impossible to have a good discussion with. If there was a good argument with evidence, I'd listened.

Zhukov:
I doubt the people who defend Origin (or whatever) on internet forums think that they are going to receive favours from EA in return.

They don't think they will, they know they will. It's called viral marketing.

I'm more feed up with people who think they have a right to direct what the game industry does. I'm sorry, the economy doesn't work by you telling producers what to produce, it works by customers buying what they like and want to see from what companies produce, there is a subtle difference there.

I'm actually sick of the opposite, I can't stand all the whiners that QQ over everything.

I have posted a million times in Escapist and other gaming sites, messages, threads, blogs urging people to say no to DRM, and all that kind of violation of our rights as gamers and consumers. And you know what is the answer that I ALWAYS get? "Yeah okay, but..Steam is actually nice! Say whatever you want, but don't touch Steam. We should be thankful for Steam."
So I'm really tired of this conversation and I have given up already. I don't care anymore.

mfeff:
Forbes has some interesting things to say on the topic...

Just gunna leave this right here...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/03/21/gaming-the-system-how-a-gaming-journalist-lost-his-job-over-a-negative-review/

Wow. That is fascinating, thanks for sharing. I'd suspected this kind of behaviour for a while but to have those suspicions essentially confirmed is disappointing.

Rheinmetall:
I have posted a million times in Escapist and other gaming sites, messages, threads, blogs urging people to say no to DRM, and all that kind of violation of our rights as gamers and consumers. And you know what is the answer that I ALWAYS get? "Yeah okay, but..Steam is actually nice! Say whatever you want, but don't touch Steam. We should be thankful for Steam."
So I'm really tired of this conversation and I have given up already. I don't care anymore.

DRM is bad but I love STEEEEEEEEEEEAM!

Consider, though, how much worse this is. Look at all the people who were outraged over Mass Effect 3 that were like "Well, I'm done with this...After I buy Mass Effect 3, that is."

Rheinmetall:
I have posted a million times in Escapist and other gaming sites, messages, threads, blogs urging people to say no to DRM, and all that kind of violation of our rights as gamers and consumers. And you know what is the answer that I ALWAYS get? "Yeah okay, but..Steam is actually nice! Say whatever you want, but don't touch Steam. We should be thankful for Steam."
So I'm really tired of this conversation and I have given up already. I don't care anymore.

I know that feel. Steam is the third worst DRM platform out there, after Ubisoft's always online crap and Origin. Yes, even Securerom in its standard unlimited install form isn't as annoying; it's just a disc check, afterall, and easily worked around without the risk of losing an account if you absolutely can't afford the space needed to lug your disc around with your laptop. How people continue to think that Steam is the best thing in the world when there's DD services like Gamersgate and Impulse out there, I'll never know.

OT: I've been sick of the industry apologists since they first started to rear their ugly heads. Gamers are quite possibly the /worst/ consumer demographic I've ever been a part of, from an economic standpoint.

Zachary Amaranth:

Rheinmetall:
I have posted a million times in Escapist and other gaming sites, messages, threads, blogs urging people to say no to DRM, and all that kind of violation of our rights as gamers and consumers. And you know what is the answer that I ALWAYS get? "Yeah okay, but..Steam is actually nice! Say whatever you want, but don't touch Steam. We should be thankful for Steam."
So I'm really tired of this conversation and I have given up already. I don't care anymore.

DRM is bad but I love STEEEEEEEEEEEAM!

Consider, though, how much worse this is. Look at all the people who were outraged over Mass Effect 3 that were like "Well, I'm done with this...After I buy Mass Effect 3, that is."

Speaking of which, Mass Effect hysteria is so much more painful to me, that Steam and DRM problems seem minor. Mass Effect is no joke. 30 years as a gamer and I have never encountered a mass psychosis like this one before. I'm scared.

Abandon4093:

This one game from a while back seemed to be written better than these other two games that came out kinda recently =/= Modern games aren't as well written as older games.

Ah, there's the issue. I'm not actually making that argument - I actually have no idea how anyone would go about proving an argument about the general state of writing then and now. You can, however, compare a specific game to another specific game, and I was basically agreeing about the absurdity of the "nostalgia" argument that always seems to get brought up when people find a specific older game to be better than a specific newer game.

Depends on the mechanic in question. They haven't figured out how to make ARPG combat as deep as turn-based or pause/play RPG combat, so I don't think we can consider that an evolution. Halo is a much better console shooter than Modern Warfare Whatever. The only RTS that has come close to touching Starcraft is Starcraft 2. Chess is still the king of turn-based strategy games. But yeah, some mechanics certainly have evolved. I particularly like the accessibility of modern games, and deeper ones demonstrate pretty conclusively that a game being accessible does not necessarily make that game shallow.

Abandon4093:

Demon's souls and especially the Witcher II were much better examples of deep mechanic based RPGs. Especially in terms of tactics and gameplay.

Don't get me wrong, Witcher 2 has strong resource management elements and good emergent mechanics for an ARPG and Dark Souls has by all accounts one of if not the best real-time melee combat engines out there. But you don't get the crazy emergent strategies you'll find in something like NetHack or a MegaTen game, which IMO (although both styles have their own version of tactics) means they aren't as deep from a pure strategic perspective.

Abandon4093:

Except they're two completely different kinds of shooters. Halo is a light hearted space fantasy shoot em up, MWw are grr, realgasm military shooters. If you're going to argue that the actual mechanics of shooters haven't gotten better over the years then yes. That's an argument from nostalgia.

No, it's an argument from auto-aim, co-op, environment size, vehicles, and AI. This is actually a really good example of the problem with the "nostalgia" argument - it rests on the often incorrect assumption that other people don't have actual reasons for their opinions.

Abandon4093:
Because they've evolved so much in the last 5 years alone that I can scarcely believe you're bringing that up as an argument. Just look at the mechanics on something like metro 2033 and tell me they're not better than the first Fear or something. Or even Stalker for that matter.

I can't speak to those specific shooters, and unfortunately because of genre conventions you have to play a particular shooter extensively in order to be able to evaluate it. Having played quite a great deal of both Halo and MW2, I strongly feel that Halo is the superior shooter in general and the superior console shooter in particular.

Abandon4093:

Shogun 2 trumps anything starcraft. I'm sorry it just does.

Abandon4093:

Chess is the classic turn based strategy game, I'm sure there are better games out there at the minute.

Go, maybe? The chess and go enthusiasts of the world tend not to have silly arguments on the internet the same way fans of the less hardcore strategy games do, so this may remain a mystery forever.

Owyn_Merrilin:

I know that feel. Steam is the third worst DRM platform out there, after Ubisoft's always online crap and Origin. Yes, even Securerom in its standard unlimited install form isn't as annoying; it's just a disc check, afterall, and easily worked around without the risk of losing an account if you absolutely can't afford the space needed to lug your disc around with your laptop. How people continue to think that Steam is the best thing in the world when there's DD services like Gamersgate and Impulse out there, I'll never know.

You see, what people refuse to see is that while Steam is the fourth worst DRM service- you forgot Games For Windows Live- at the same time it is the first most dangerous one, because it is well organized and has established a wide network of pertnerships all over the gaming landscape. We are heading towards a global monopoly where every single game in the future will be filtered by Steam, or the Steam consortium, before we will be allowed to play it and kindly share the ownership of the game with them.

Kahunaburger:

Abandon4093:

This one game from a while back seemed to be written better than these other two games that came out kinda recently =/= Modern games aren't as well written as older games.

Ah, there's the issue. I'm not actually making that argument - I actually have no idea how anyone would go about proving an argument about the general state of writing then and now. You can, however, compare a specific game to another specific game, and I was basically agreeing about the absurdity of the "nostalgia" argument that always seems to get brought up when people find a specific older game to be better than a specific newer game.

Fair enough, I thought you were saying that older games were pretty much always better written and had stronger mechanics.

Abandon4093:

Demon's souls and especially the Witcher II were much better examples of deep mechanic based RPGs. Especially in terms of tactics and gameplay.

Don't get me wrong, Witcher 2 has strong resource management elements and good emergent mechanics for an ARPG and Dark Souls has by all accounts one of if not the best real-time melee combat engines out there. But you don't get the crazy emergent strategies you'll find in something like NetHack or a MegaTen game, which IMO (although both styles have their own version of tactics) means they aren't as deep from a pure strategic perspective.

I suppose it's down to personal preference, but I think real time will always trump turn based when it comes to strategy. It's all about preparing and being able to follow through with it.

Abandon4093:

Except they're two completely different kinds of shooters. Halo is a light hearted space fantasy shoot em up, MWw are grr, realgasm military shooters. If you're going to argue that the actual mechanics of shooters haven't gotten better over the years then yes. That's an argument from nostalgia.

No, it's an argument from auto-aim, co-op, environment size, vehicles, and AI. This is actually a really good example of the problem with the "nostalgia" argument - it rests on the often incorrect assumption that other people don't have actual reasons for their opinions.

Auto aim is kind of a dead issue when we're talking about PCs. Co-op has definetely gotten stronger, especially with the way that netcodes have evolved. Environment is just as strong if you play the right kind of shooters, vehicles are my personally most loathed part of FPS' but I think you'd find it hard to argue that BF3 wasn't a better vehicle simulator than Halo and AI has certainly gotten better. Sure we still have duds, but the best examples of todays AI trump the best examples of yesterdays AI. Figuratively speaking.

But that wasn't even really the point, from a mechanics pov. There are much stronger gaming mechanics today than there ever have been in the past. That's not to say people can't enjoy older games more. But design of gameplay wise. They're much stronger today than they've ever been before.

Abandon4093:
Because they've evolved so much in the last 5 years alone that I can scarcely believe you're bringing that up as an argument. Just look at the mechanics on something like metro 2033 and tell me they're not better than the first Fear or something. Or even Stalker for that matter.

I can't speak to those specific shooters, and unfortunately because of genre conventions you have to play a particular shooter extensively in order to be able to evaluate it. Having played quite a great deal of both Halo and MW2, I strongly feel that Halo is the superior shooter in general and the superior console shooter in particular.

But you're comparing a classic to a money printer.

It's like comparing a Rolls Royce to a Fiat. It doesn't matter that the fiat was made ten years later, the same care and attention didn't go into making it.

Abandon4093:

Shogun 2 trumps anything starcraft. I'm sorry it just does.

I'm sorry but it just is. Total war has always been the leader of the RTS pack in my eyes. And I think Shogun 2 is probably the best Total war game so far.

Starcraft never got me interested, and I'd argue it certainly isn't as deep an RTS experience.

Abandon4093:

Chess is the classic turn based strategy game, I'm sure there are better games out there at the minute.

Go, maybe? The chess and go enthusiasts of the world tend not to have silly arguments on the internet the same way fans of the less hardcore strategy games do, so this may remain a mystery forever.

Chess is only as hardcore as you make it. It's one of them 'easy to learn, impossible to master' games. But I'd imagine there are better strategy games out there for those who're really interested in strategy.

ph0b0s123:
Our engagement with the games industry and use their products has been chaining recently, in comparison with how I have played games for the last 20 years. Some examples for my point of view are the following:

-Being forces to use digital distribution platforms even when we opted to buy from a shop

-Not being able to buy full used games any more,

-Having to pay extra to get content that should have been in the original game

-Having to install a digital distribution platform that requires mandatory data collection from our computers

-Having DRM schemes that require always on internet access.

-Potential modding single player games will result in ban.

(these are just my personal peeves at the moment)

What drives me mad is every time one of these topics comes up their are those that rush to the defence of the industry and tell you that you are wrong for getting angry. I think it is thanks to these kind of sycophants that the games industry think the recent, forced changes, to our engagement with them, will fly.

What do you think? Are you fed up with people who defend whatever the industry do, no matter what?

Edit: Don't know if sycophant is the right term. Maybe someone else can think of a better one for those that defend the industry no matter what they do.

What I want to know is, who are the 67 people that voted no/other.

*reads OP*

Yes, I think the title is accurate, the crazies that defend the video game industry for outright exploitation of their customers in methods w, x, y, and z ect are just weird, hence why I want to know why 67 (45, but 22 other?) people voted 'for' the sycopants, as you call them.

But what are we going to do about it? Yes, I have realised that I hate almost every game company (although march madness has introduced me to several new ones, which I'll look up), the major ones, EA, Ubisoft, Activision, on and on it goes, I don't want to buy anything from again - but if the game is good enough, of course I will.

Rheinmetall:

Speaking of which, Mass Effect hysteria is so much more painful to me, that Steam and DRM problems seem minor. Mass Effect is no joke. 30 years as a gamer and I have never encountered a mass psychosis like this one before. I'm scared.

Mass psychosis? Mass Effect? >.>

I think Jim Sterling was probably on the ball when he said that there hasn't been a product that has engaged us like Mass Effect, hence the response. And hence it not actually being a bad thing. This really is the George Lucas Effect. It's not scary; sad, sometimes, but not scary.

What scares me is death threats over video games, and harassment and trolling that leads to cops being called over an online match. We've had cases in Florida and Texas where SWAT or similar teams have been sent in to what they believe is a hostile environment because some douchebag couldn't handle a loss on Live and pretended there was a suicide or terrorist plot going on.

This is also reflected in other media. TV stars and pro wrestlers have been assaulted over what their characters do on TV. However, violence is a little scarier than what is at best mass outrage and at worse entitlement.

Conza:

But what are we going to do about it?

Stop making blind fanboyism acceptable would be a start.

I voted no because the question is stupid.

"Do you kick puppies y/n?"

The author of the question is kind of expecting a certain answer.

Conza:

But what are we going to do about it?

Well for a start, call them on it, hence the thread.....

Unsilenced:
I voted no because the question is stupid.

"Do you kick puppies y/n?"

The author of the question is kind of expecting a certain answer.

I did that in a MUD once, expecting an Infocom style "What are you, a monster?" type response, but not realizing "Kick" was an attack command. I can't remember if the puppy killed me or if I walked away with 1 or 2 hitpoints, but the moral of the story is that puppies are deadly in old school RPGs.

Edit: a bit more on topic, but if you'll read the OP, it's not a leading question at all. People actually exist who fit his description; poke around on the forums for examples, although they've mercifully become more rare since the internet blackout.

Owyn_Merrilin:

Unsilenced:
I voted no because the question is stupid.

"Do you kick puppies y/n?"

The author of the question is kind of expecting a certain answer.

I did that in a MUD once, expecting an Infocom style "What are you, a monster?" type response, but not realizing "Kick" was an attack command. I can't remember if the puppy killed me or if I walked away with 1 or 2 hitpoints, but the moral of the story is that puppies are deadly in old school RPGs.

>>Level 1 in a MUD.
>>Killed by baby mouse.

Unsilenced:

Owyn_Merrilin:

Unsilenced:
I voted no because the question is stupid.

"Do you kick puppies y/n?"

The author of the question is kind of expecting a certain answer.

I did that in a MUD once, expecting an Infocom style "What are you, a monster?" type response, but not realizing "Kick" was an attack command. I can't remember if the puppy killed me or if I walked away with 1 or 2 hitpoints, but the moral of the story is that puppies are deadly in old school RPGs.

>>Level 1 in a MUD.
>>Killed by baby mouse.

Pretty much, yeah XD

Zachary Amaranth:

Conza:

But what are we going to do about it?

Stop making blind fanboyism acceptable would be a start.

Ok, here's the thing, you don't find it acceptable, I don't find it acceptable, but there's a hoard of masses out there, who either A. Don't know better or B. Do, and don't care. Do we want to make people start hating the games they love, because the people who made them are monsters? I don't think that's right either. The only way through is public education of the issues, such as the ones this thread highlights, and hope we can get lots of people from A. and maybe even some people from B. to understand why these companies are wrong.

But lets face it, boycotting the companies, as I plan to in some small part, (which'll frankly be a piece of cake now, I don't see any of the large companies producing a game I'd like), will only go so far, and that's about as far as; they won't notice it, because half of the people here that say 'yeah! I hate these companies too' are days and weeks away from buying a game from that said company.

ph0b0s123:

Conza:

But what are we going to do about it?

Well for a start, call them on it, hence the thread.....

Here's another thing, do we expect that executives of ANY of these companies read any of these threads? Do we really? No of course we don't, this site is for, well a gamers discussion website as far as I've been able to tell in the 2ish years I've been on these forums, and while some of the smaller developers 'may' have employees that read/participate here, to expect larger companies to be on this website seems unlikely to me.

Abandon4093:

There are much stronger gaming mechanics today than there ever have been in the past. That's not to say people can't enjoy older games more. But design of gameplay wise. They're much stronger today than they've ever been before.

In theory, yes. In practice, while games today can draw on a larger and better pool of mechanics than older games, developers often fail to do so. Some developers (Bungie is particularly consistent with this, as is the roguelike scene, as I've recently discovered) find ways to continually refine and improve mechanics. Most, however, seem content to make shallower, prettier versions of stuff we've already seen. The perception among many devs seems to be that your average consumer will notice things like pretty graphics, but not things like complexity, depth, or balance.

Abandon4093:

I can't speak to those specific shooters, and unfortunately because of genre conventions you have to play a particular shooter extensively in order to be able to evaluate it. Having played quite a great deal of both Halo and MW2, I strongly feel that Halo is the superior shooter in general and the superior console shooter in particular.

But you're comparing a classic to a money printer.

It's like comparing a Rolls Royce to a Fiat. It doesn't matter that the fiat was made ten years later, the same care and attention didn't go into making it.

Yes. That's the whole point of my counterargument to the nostalgia argument: sometimes people like specific old games better than specific new games because the specific old games are better by the standards those people are using and/or the standards pretty much everyone uses.

Abandon4093:

Chess is only as hardcore as you make it. It's one of them 'easy to learn, impossible to master' games. But I'd imagine there are better strategy games out there for those who're really interested in strategy.

The thing with chess (and go) is that they basically have, for all intents and purposes, no skill ceiling. People literally spend lifetimes mastering them. I can't think of a video game that you can say the same about.

I am tired of both sides. They are both equally childish,

Are you sure it's people defending the industry, and not just people recognizing that this is a relatively new media that's still finding its feet in a new technological era?

You know what drives me mad? People that whine and scream about the big, bad game companies then jump onto another thread exclaiming how excited they are to buy the next big game from them. You're not helping game companies and you're not helping out gamers by bitching on a forum. You want your product to improve? You do what every other consumer does, vote with their wallets.

Kahunaburger:

Abandon4093:

There are much stronger gaming mechanics today than there ever have been in the past. That's not to say people can't enjoy older games more. But design of gameplay wise. They're much stronger today than they've ever been before.

In theory, yes. In practice, while games today can draw on a larger and better pool of mechanics than older games, developers often fail to do so. Some developers (Bungie is particularly consistent with this, as is the roguelike scene, as I've recently discovered) find ways to continually refine and improve mechanics. Most, however, seem content to make shallower, prettier versions of stuff we've already seen. The perception among many devs seems to be that your average consumer will notice things like pretty graphics, but not things like complexity, depth, or balance.

Just like companies used to churn out clones and out right ripoffs back in the 80's, 90's 00's.

There's always going to be more coal than diamonds.

Abandon4093:

I can't speak to those specific shooters, and unfortunately because of genre conventions you have to play a particular shooter extensively in order to be able to evaluate it. Having played quite a great deal of both Halo and MW2, I strongly feel that Halo is the superior shooter in general and the superior console shooter in particular.

But you're comparing a classic to a money printer.

It's like comparing a Rolls Royce to a Fiat. It doesn't matter that the fiat was made ten years later, the same care and attention didn't go into making it.

Yes. That's the whole point of my counterargument to the nostalgia argument: sometimes people like specific old games better than specific new games because the specific old games are better by the standards those people are using and/or the standards pretty much everyone uses.

But the nostalgia argument (as I've seen it used and used myself) is when people say all games from X period are better than Y period. And you'd be shocked how often such claims are made.

I also don't think there are many sane individuals that would say all modern games are better than older games. It's pretty much just a reversal of the same argument.

Abandon4093:

Chess is only as hardcore as you make it. It's one of them 'easy to learn, impossible to master' games. But I'd imagine there are better strategy games out there for those who're really interested in strategy.

The thing with chess (and go) is that they basically have, for all intents and purposes, no skill ceiling. People literally spend lifetimes mastering them. I can't think of a video game that you can say the same about.

I suppose you could make that argument. But chess itself is still limiting, you have a very limited set of tools you can use and moves to make. There must be some sort of ceiling at which no more can possibly be achieved.

I am also equally sure that there are more complicated and deep strategy board games than chess.

I think chess is just the stalwart classic. And a truly great chess player is usually a genius in their own right.

I'm sick of everyone complaining about the gaming industry entirely. Just shut all kinds of the fuck up.

Conza:

Ok, here's the thing, you don't find it acceptable, I don't find it acceptable, but there's a hoard of masses out there, who either A. Don't know better or B. Do, and don't care.

That's lovely. So remind me how raising awareness for the former group is a bad thing?

Do we want to make people start hating the games they love, because the people who made them are monsters? I don't think that's right either.

Ah, a false dichotomy. Proposing two extreme and structured alternatives as though they are the only options.

The only way through is public education of the issues, such as the ones this thread highlights, and hope we can get lots of people from A. and maybe even some people from B. to understand why these companies are wrong.

So...You knew the answer.

But lets face it, boycotting the companies, as I plan to in some small part, (which'll frankly be a piece of cake now, I don't see any of the large companies producing a game I'd like), will only go so far, and that's about as far as; they won't notice it, because half of the people here that say 'yeah! I hate these companies too' are days and weeks away from buying a game from that said company.

Which is true of any movement. By that logic, boycotts should have never worked. Ever.

Here's another thing, do we expect that executives of ANY of these companies read any of these threads?

Does that really matter?

No, I do not apologize for the gaming industry. I do not have a black and white view of this issue. Much like everything else, there are grey areas in this debate.

When the extra content adds fuck all to the game, I do not mind paying for it. If the game requests that you pay a few dollars for access to an extra area that is in the side of the world and has nothing to do with the main quest, I do not mind it if I like the game. If there is an extra character class or race that increases my talent pool, then I do not care. AFAIC, Mass Effect 3 was a complete experience from the start. You did not have to play as the prothian to enjoy the game, nor do you need the unlock codes from all of the tie in products to play it. The game provided you a complete story that starts and finishes. The interaction between the game company and myself ends when I give the store money and they give me the game.

The line in the sand is if Mass Effect 3 was delivered 70 percent complete. (It could be any number less than 95 percent and my argument would still stand. We live in an age where patches are almost required from day one and I do not mind them.) If the company shipped the game without the entire last mission and it forced you to download an extra 5 gigabytes of information to see that final part of the game, then I have a problem with it. I have even more of a problem if the company demands that you pay an extra 25 dollars for the ending. The company did not deliver a complete story.

What I can't stand are people that try to impose their will onto the gaming companies. All those Mass Effect 3 ending people annoy the hell out of me. Who cares about entitlement because that is not what they are doing. What they were doing was imposing their will on to the game and did this in opposition to the 85090 percent that could care less about the game's ending, or the ones that think that the ending makes sense. Yeah and I don't buy the argument that one person wrote the ending with out the other writer's knowing about it. That reads like the company scapegoating one person and nothing else.

Ask my brother, however, he thinks that if it on the disc, we should get it regardless. He sees this whole issue in a black and white manner. The company either give us everything or they are screwing us out of money. Sorry, but an excluded middle fallacy does not work on anyone with a brain.

It's gotten to the point were I find it difficult to play old classics that I used to love because the gameplay just feels so rough and unfinished by todays standards.

It's gotten to the point to where I barley have to pay attention (or want to) because 90 something % of the games now are so dumbed down and moronic.

I don't think they're a problem, but they are an annoyance. It's the same kind of thing when people act as apologists for everything a given government does, though on a smaller, less detrimental scale. There are a slew of reasons why people do this, and it doesn't help a situation. Sure, not all the things the industry does is bad. And yes, it's not always about the money for them, but it's increasingly and quickly turning in that direction.

I'm sick of people who see the world in black and white.

No, because they'll all learn eventually, when a publisher destroys their favorite franchise or studio. The current BioWare supporters will be screaming for EA's blood in a few years.

What i'm sick of are gaming "journalists" who always tend to have big companies' backs and lash out at gaming communities, instead of being objective.

chstens:
I am tired of both sides. They are both equally childish,

The important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to both.

Actually, what I'm more fucking sick of are all the people who won't approve of a single damn thing any company in the industry does unless it's related to Steam, Valve, or Notch.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked