Can fans really ever be pleased?
- Thread starter Pink Gregory
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Skyrim. Two games I played recently that were sequels and generated huge amounts of approval. Of course there WERE people who claimed it sucks because it didn't live up to previous games, but that's unfair to label that as "All fans are whiners". The fact is that you will never have something that's released and receives universal acclaim because some people will hate a popular trend because it's popular!
With these two games, though, the majority of fans loved them and have put hundreds of hours into thes every well crafted games. When going on metacritic I've learned never to look at the RED reviews as they are always hate filled bile "TEH GAME SUKZZ BCOS I PLAY ORIGINAL WEN I WAS TEN YEARS OLD AN MY PARENTS WERE ALIVE THEN AND NOW MY PARENTS R DED AN THIS GAME IS RELEASED OBVIOUSLY DEVELOPERS KILLED MY PARENTS SO THIS GAME GETS 0/10!!!!!!"
Addendum - yes, there are fans out there who will NEVER be satisfied because they have a picture in their head of how a sequel would look and any deviation from this means the developers are Lucifer himself. The vast majority of fans are happy to see a new addition to a series and will look at a game with an open mind.
Oh...and for the record...I did think Civ V was rubbish compared to Civ IV, but that was largely because the enormous sprawling choices and options of Civ IV (Complete) was never going to be equalled by the hugely cut down entry of Civ V. I do think it was a good game...but it's like being used to driving a Rolls Royce for ten years and then being given the option to change to a Ford Focus. Sure it's a good car and it has some nifty mod cons and I'd be happy enough to drive it in its own right, but it simply doesn't compare...
With these two games, though, the majority of fans loved them and have put hundreds of hours into thes every well crafted games. When going on metacritic I've learned never to look at the RED reviews as they are always hate filled bile "TEH GAME SUKZZ BCOS I PLAY ORIGINAL WEN I WAS TEN YEARS OLD AN MY PARENTS WERE ALIVE THEN AND NOW MY PARENTS R DED AN THIS GAME IS RELEASED OBVIOUSLY DEVELOPERS KILLED MY PARENTS SO THIS GAME GETS 0/10!!!!!!"
Addendum - yes, there are fans out there who will NEVER be satisfied because they have a picture in their head of how a sequel would look and any deviation from this means the developers are Lucifer himself. The vast majority of fans are happy to see a new addition to a series and will look at a game with an open mind.
Oh...and for the record...I did think Civ V was rubbish compared to Civ IV, but that was largely because the enormous sprawling choices and options of Civ IV (Complete) was never going to be equalled by the hugely cut down entry of Civ V. I do think it was a good game...but it's like being used to driving a Rolls Royce for ten years and then being given the option to change to a Ford Focus. Sure it's a good car and it has some nifty mod cons and I'd be happy enough to drive it in its own right, but it simply doesn't compare...
No you can't. Everyone is different. You cant please them all, but you can please the majority of them.
Most of the hatred revolves around It changes now so it sucks [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks] and It's the same so it sucks [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ItsTheSameNowItSucks].
Most of the hatred revolves around It changes now so it sucks [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks] and It's the same so it sucks [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ItsTheSameNowItSucks].
Well I'd consider myself a fan and many of the things I've experienced as a fan have pleased me greatly. Yeah, there have been a fair few times where my fandom has left feeling pretty stupid for having good expectations, but more often than not I'm pretty happy with the things I'm a fan of. I suppose that's why I'm a fan of those things?
Here's my take on "true fans".
A "true" fan of any given material understands that the material has to evolve with the passage of time. A true fan isn't afraid to voice his disappointment or his pleasure, but he does so in a constructive manner that doesn't step on any personal boundaries. A "true" fan understands that about 99.9% of the people you'll meet in the great big world outside of the Interwebs are all likely to look at your chosen fandom and go "Eh."
If you're a fan, you understand that every creation has its limits. If you're sitting there caterwauling for changes to be reverted or for other changes to be implemented - if you're in any shape or form of the "They changed it, now it sucks" camp and happen to be unable to explain why in a constructive manner, you've lost your fan badge, IMHO. You've joined the droves of bawling fanboys who don't have anything constructive to contribute to the medium other than blind zeal.
Criticism is one thing. Complaining is another.
A "true" fan of any given material understands that the material has to evolve with the passage of time. A true fan isn't afraid to voice his disappointment or his pleasure, but he does so in a constructive manner that doesn't step on any personal boundaries. A "true" fan understands that about 99.9% of the people you'll meet in the great big world outside of the Interwebs are all likely to look at your chosen fandom and go "Eh."
If you're a fan, you understand that every creation has its limits. If you're sitting there caterwauling for changes to be reverted or for other changes to be implemented - if you're in any shape or form of the "They changed it, now it sucks" camp and happen to be unable to explain why in a constructive manner, you've lost your fan badge, IMHO. You've joined the droves of bawling fanboys who don't have anything constructive to contribute to the medium other than blind zeal.
Criticism is one thing. Complaining is another.
Valid point, my friend. That would suck to go unnoticed. And you're right, those reviews should be ignored, but the fact that some "fans" waste their time criticizing games so harshly is ridiculous. People work hard on games and we should say "thank you" for all the good games out there.OpticalJunction said:
Complaints, they're not so legit to me. Suggestions and new ideas, that's fine with me. But you never know what sort of experience really stuck with a game developer when they were growing up. Maybe they love Resident Evil 2 style camera and controls. If they are creating a game and they want to incorporate that, good for them. Maybe they want to show the generation who missed that style of play an experience from the past. Maybe they want to innovate, but it didn't work - a reviewer can write "it didn't work", not "I hate you and your family should die because you did that." Chyou know!?
Of course fans can be pleased. I love Silent Hill and even while the new iterations aren't totally in line with the original quadrilogy they still had the same ideas, good stories and neat gameplay and they got the respect and praise from fans they deserved. And the SH HD C was really good too and I know all fans appreciated what Konami was trying to do...
Well with that out of the way; no. A new game in a long running series will never live up to the expectations of die hard fans... Unless it has Nathan Fillion in it, oh yes...
Well with that out of the way; no. A new game in a long running series will never live up to the expectations of die hard fans... Unless it has Nathan Fillion in it, oh yes...
What is this? You all seem to think that fans are all unreasonable people that won't be happy no matter what game they're playing. Of course they can be pleased. If Resident Evil 7 is not like 6, fans will be pleased to some extent at least. But there is a difference between being pleased and overlooking every problem the game has. Games are different from each other and fans are different from each other, you're never going to please 100% of fans with 100% of the game, and to aim for that is stupid. If a game changes at all, some fans will like it and some fans will not. But they can still enjoy it and not take major issue with it.
It's usually a 50/50 with me.
I always find something that pleases me and something that doesn't
For instance: World of Warcraft: Cataclysm
There was a lot of negativity spread about every aspect of that game. I liked parts of it, like how we had to go find the entrances to dungeons before we could actually enter them, as well as the talent system re-vamp (It wasn't the greatest, but it was nice). The story-telling was nice and had me feeling more immersed in the story behind Azeroth's imminent doom, but the end-game content was just bland and boring (In my opinion, anyway) and the fact that we could kill Deathwing with only 25 people was kind of a disappointment, being a major figurehead in WoW lore as well as the Aspect of Death and "The Destroyer" he doesn't really seem like something that could be taken down by merely 25 players. 40 would have been a more reasonable number, like back in Vanilla WoW.
That's just my input though.
WoW was the best example I could think of in such short notice.
I always find something that pleases me and something that doesn't
For instance: World of Warcraft: Cataclysm
There was a lot of negativity spread about every aspect of that game. I liked parts of it, like how we had to go find the entrances to dungeons before we could actually enter them, as well as the talent system re-vamp (It wasn't the greatest, but it was nice). The story-telling was nice and had me feeling more immersed in the story behind Azeroth's imminent doom, but the end-game content was just bland and boring (In my opinion, anyway) and the fact that we could kill Deathwing with only 25 people was kind of a disappointment, being a major figurehead in WoW lore as well as the Aspect of Death and "The Destroyer" he doesn't really seem like something that could be taken down by merely 25 players. 40 would have been a more reasonable number, like back in Vanilla WoW.
That's just my input though.
WoW was the best example I could think of in such short notice.
Yes, for a about 5 minutes. You can wow a fan very briefly and make them happy but they almost immediately want more. It's pretty much not worth trying since 'true fans' buy media regardless of whether or not they like it anyways.
Depends on how much the game changes and if the changes are good. Fans tend to be very intimate with a game, have a deeper understanding of it's more hidden facets, (especially game feel). So a game that looks like a good sequel to casual onlookers is a goddamn mess to those who know more about the series if the changes ruin any depth of play the originals had.
Most fans are nuts though.
Most fans are nuts though.
"Gamers can only be pleased by the first game in a series"
Um, not if you actually make a series worth playing.
Etrian Odyssey games have gotten progressively better.
I was pleased with Luminous Arc 2
Metroid Prime 2 is my favorite of the trilogy.
But those are a few examples. Sadly there are way more examples to support the stereotype. Even within the same series as I didn't care for Metroid Prime 3 at all.
I may prefer Symphony of the Night to the earlier CV games, and to the NEWER CV games.
The point being that people enjoy good games, and when developers drop the ball on a sequel its in someways worse than on a new IP.
Um, not if you actually make a series worth playing.
Etrian Odyssey games have gotten progressively better.
I was pleased with Luminous Arc 2
Metroid Prime 2 is my favorite of the trilogy.
But those are a few examples. Sadly there are way more examples to support the stereotype. Even within the same series as I didn't care for Metroid Prime 3 at all.
I may prefer Symphony of the Night to the earlier CV games, and to the NEWER CV games.
The point being that people enjoy good games, and when developers drop the ball on a sequel its in someways worse than on a new IP.
Sure they can. The problem is that creators, game creators especially, are not interested in pleasing fans, they're interested in drawing new customers. They attempt to pander to fans but they don't develop for them usually. Whenever a series is rebooted they're hoping on repeat business from older customers but they design the game for the current market, not for the fans. Just like Fallout 3.
If you look at games like Master of Orion and Master of Orion 2 what you see is that Simtex is trying to develop a better game not a widely diverse game. The only thing most developers develop for now is a more diverse market. The reason Bethesda made Fallout 3 a shooter is because they were interested in diversifying the property, if they were trying to make a better version of Fallout 2 they would have left it third person isometric. I can say the same for the new X-com game. It's a good game but not necessarily a good sequel. You can see this most clearly in the Mass Effect series over a shorter time frame.
If you look at games like Master of Orion and Master of Orion 2 what you see is that Simtex is trying to develop a better game not a widely diverse game. The only thing most developers develop for now is a more diverse market. The reason Bethesda made Fallout 3 a shooter is because they were interested in diversifying the property, if they were trying to make a better version of Fallout 2 they would have left it third person isometric. I can say the same for the new X-com game. It's a good game but not necessarily a good sequel. You can see this most clearly in the Mass Effect series over a shorter time frame.
Thing is, fans are almost always fickle, there's got to be some degree of independent control over the project from its creators, otherwise a lot of focus is lost; of course I think the problem you're getting at is trying to appeal to other people's fans, which is different.Do4600 said:
That and ultimately it's just not good business sense to appeal purely to a market that would be shrinking at worst and static at best; of course that's a shame, and it seems strange that you'd attract more people to a sequel than the first game, unless they're standalone, like Civilization or CoD.
So, from what I'm picking up from what you're saying, would it be fair to say that you believe that, in a sequel, it's necessary for the majority of features to be at least very similar to the preceding game to please the fans?
Being nitpicky for a second, I wouldn't call the new XCOM a sequel by any stretch (I have a kneejerk tendency to defend the new XCOM because I love it I love it I love it), but that's just semantics.
No. Fans are disgusting, awful people. You can please some of them but the thing about fans is they all have a different take on where a franchise should go and, although you can have an idea or make a decision that appeals to some of them, there will always be at least a handful of people who will be pissed off no matter what direction you go in.
Here's a question.
CoD - disliked for its constant sequels and virtually unchanged gameplay in each instalment.
XCOM - disliked by some (a somewhat vocal some) for a single reboot with quite substantially changed gameplay.
I know it's ultimately folly to try and look at them this broadly, but their individual merits and problems isn't the point right here.
Now, I imagine that some of what 'fans' want from a sequel/continuation can be summarised in the credo, "Like the original, but better". But how does that apply when some 'fans' seem to believe that the original is utterly perfect?
I 'unno, maybe I have a problem when people seem to put faith in a name or franchise rather than each game on their own merits and deficiencies, but I suppose narrative-heavy series are the exception here (Mass Effect)
CoD - disliked for its constant sequels and virtually unchanged gameplay in each instalment.
XCOM - disliked by some (a somewhat vocal some) for a single reboot with quite substantially changed gameplay.
I know it's ultimately folly to try and look at them this broadly, but their individual merits and problems isn't the point right here.
Now, I imagine that some of what 'fans' want from a sequel/continuation can be summarised in the credo, "Like the original, but better". But how does that apply when some 'fans' seem to believe that the original is utterly perfect?
I 'unno, maybe I have a problem when people seem to put faith in a name or franchise rather than each game on their own merits and deficiencies, but I suppose narrative-heavy series are the exception here (Mass Effect)
"True Fans"
Well we can go hours on this, can't we. Let's just keep it simple~
A true fan of any genre should not be classified as one who enjoys the perfections of the game, but rather enjoys the franchise as a whole. Take Need for Speed for example. If we apply the True Fan definition that everyone (at least on the earlier side of the thread) was using, that is a fan who believes the genuine concepts and game mechanics they originally saw and used are the best of the best, Star Wars would never have grown as a universe. It would have been the first three movies... and that is it. Phantom Menace, as critically bashed as it is, did in fact expand on the Star Wars universe; whether people like it or not is up to them. A True Fan in the sense that every new thing is terrible means that the series should be stagnant and not change.
Now, let us apply the true fan definition that should be; someone who enjoys the series and just wants to see the universe expand, to see more people come on board with the game, if not to even just want to see more games within the same realm. Star Wars is getting a 7th movie and people cannot wait to pounce out of their chairs and say the original three were the best. Again. And again. However, I believe that, as well as a few others I would hope, regardless of how the movie does financially, critically, or even visually, the movie will expand on the universe and potentially bring new ideas and concepts to the table. Which is exiting. Not "ruining" anything, new ideas are great for franchises as long as they fit. Suddenly saying "Oh and by the way, Star wars is in the same universe as Star trek," is not a logical move, but -it could probably be done successfully.- (Likely with the same rage and hatred as anything else that changes star wars in anyway.
Well we can go hours on this, can't we. Let's just keep it simple~
A true fan of any genre should not be classified as one who enjoys the perfections of the game, but rather enjoys the franchise as a whole. Take Need for Speed for example. If we apply the True Fan definition that everyone (at least on the earlier side of the thread) was using, that is a fan who believes the genuine concepts and game mechanics they originally saw and used are the best of the best, Star Wars would never have grown as a universe. It would have been the first three movies... and that is it. Phantom Menace, as critically bashed as it is, did in fact expand on the Star Wars universe; whether people like it or not is up to them. A True Fan in the sense that every new thing is terrible means that the series should be stagnant and not change.
Now, let us apply the true fan definition that should be; someone who enjoys the series and just wants to see the universe expand, to see more people come on board with the game, if not to even just want to see more games within the same realm. Star Wars is getting a 7th movie and people cannot wait to pounce out of their chairs and say the original three were the best. Again. And again. However, I believe that, as well as a few others I would hope, regardless of how the movie does financially, critically, or even visually, the movie will expand on the universe and potentially bring new ideas and concepts to the table. Which is exiting. Not "ruining" anything, new ideas are great for franchises as long as they fit. Suddenly saying "Oh and by the way, Star wars is in the same universe as Star trek," is not a logical move, but -it could probably be done successfully.- (Likely with the same rage and hatred as anything else that changes star wars in anyway.