"Contrarian" Gamers Suck Says Treyarch
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
The guy who manages the community of Black Ops, is bitching about people who *****.
LAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!
The communities of FPS are mostly players who want the game to be good/balanced/etc.
If he thinks his job is hard, he should go to Blizzard and talk to anyone who has to deal with anything WoW-related.
What a whiney *****.
That being said, I understand his point that people complain about a game more often than praise it, but that is true of everything.
Everyone everywhere is faster to complain about anything, than praise it.
LAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!
The communities of FPS are mostly players who want the game to be good/balanced/etc.
If he thinks his job is hard, he should go to Blizzard and talk to anyone who has to deal with anything WoW-related.
What a whiney *****.
That being said, I understand his point that people complain about a game more often than praise it, but that is true of everything.
Everyone everywhere is faster to complain about anything, than praise it.
Game production is a business, just like movie and music production. You're not trying to make something "fun" or "entertaining", you're trying to make something that people will give you money for. Hopefully repeatedly. Don't get me wrong, I like the entire "believes the reactions are actually holding the industry back from taking risks" and 'for fun's sake' advocacy he's presenting, but at the same time Treyarch's release list kind of undermines itself. I'm not saying it's not a list that contains some enjoyable titles, I'm saying that it looks more reminiscent of someone going back to the same well every day, occasionally changing the bucket they use for variety, rather than a list of artistic endeavors.
Let me be very clear on my opinion here; Making an enjoyable game and getting someone to buy your game are -not- synonymous. If they were, there would be no such thing as "sleeper" hits. A game CAN be an expression of artistic skill and integrity but unless you can recover your financial loses you will probably never get another opportunity again, and that's all assuming that you are able to convince another party to place a substantial monetary investment behind your project in the first place.
That's part of the reason why developers and publishers implement achievements, progress bars, aggressive or shock advertisements and a variety of other mechanics to get you to pick up the game. Once your wallet is a little lighter and their money bin a bit fuller, that's mission accomplished. Those mechanics are there so that when you look back at those +20 hours you feel too ashamed to say "Crap, that was a waste of $60 and a day".
I'm not saying that this all stands true for all developers, there are some truly unique, entertaining interactive media experiences out there. However when Mr. Olin says "I think the social culture of video games is moving in a more negative direction as technology and social media continues to grow"I would say that developers are just as much to blame for the decline of the gamer culture as the gamers that compose that culture. As the gaming industry becomes more and more successful financially, more and more companies are getting involved with it, purely for the purpose of turning a profit. This is where cheap movie, cash-in and license-grab games come from, and where the industry suffers. If you keep feeding us junkfood, why are you surprised that we've become overweight with a mouth full of cavities. What's more, why are you surprised that we're letting you know that it happened?
*And on a very small aside: Trolls. Can't live with them, can't burn them alive. For that much, I sympathize.
Let me be very clear on my opinion here; Making an enjoyable game and getting someone to buy your game are -not- synonymous. If they were, there would be no such thing as "sleeper" hits. A game CAN be an expression of artistic skill and integrity but unless you can recover your financial loses you will probably never get another opportunity again, and that's all assuming that you are able to convince another party to place a substantial monetary investment behind your project in the first place.
That's part of the reason why developers and publishers implement achievements, progress bars, aggressive or shock advertisements and a variety of other mechanics to get you to pick up the game. Once your wallet is a little lighter and their money bin a bit fuller, that's mission accomplished. Those mechanics are there so that when you look back at those +20 hours you feel too ashamed to say "Crap, that was a waste of $60 and a day".
I'm not saying that this all stands true for all developers, there are some truly unique, entertaining interactive media experiences out there. However when Mr. Olin says "I think the social culture of video games is moving in a more negative direction as technology and social media continues to grow"I would say that developers are just as much to blame for the decline of the gamer culture as the gamers that compose that culture. As the gaming industry becomes more and more successful financially, more and more companies are getting involved with it, purely for the purpose of turning a profit. This is where cheap movie, cash-in and license-grab games come from, and where the industry suffers. If you keep feeding us junkfood, why are you surprised that we've become overweight with a mouth full of cavities. What's more, why are you surprised that we're letting you know that it happened?
*And on a very small aside: Trolls. Can't live with them, can't burn them alive. For that much, I sympathize.
In a related story, as more and more people buy CoD, the number of fat people playing CoD increases. Also, the number of skinny people increases. And the number of short people. And the number of certifiably insane people.
Did everyone with an IQ over 100 work at IW?
Also, go fuck yourself, guy. Maybe we hate on your game because it's pretty much the same CoD you put out last year with a new coat of paint, and sometimes it's even a pretty shitty paintjob. And I'm pretty sure greed (yours or someone else's, doesn't matter) is what prevents you from taking innovative chances with game design.
Did everyone with an IQ over 100 work at IW?
Also, go fuck yourself, guy. Maybe we hate on your game because it's pretty much the same CoD you put out last year with a new coat of paint, and sometimes it's even a pretty shitty paintjob. And I'm pretty sure greed (yours or someone else's, doesn't matter) is what prevents you from taking innovative chances with game design.
Game developers need to shut the fuck up. Especially the big wigs. Bitching from the "core" community is more or less their true constructive criticism. Perhaps they just need to grow a thicker skin. The whiny bastards.
I completely agree with Olin. Video games are meant to be entertaining and fun. A lot of cod fans have lost sight of that.
They stopped enjoying call of duty a long time ago and now it's a mere obsession for them.
They stopped enjoying call of duty a long time ago and now it's a mere obsession for them.
If they want bitching to stop, open up the modding community.
They have people playing their games by the millions and they can keep shoveling more onto the public every year. Obviously the people bitching and complaining aren't hurting them. Their feelings are getting hurt. Awww. how sad.
They could stop treating gaemes like it's an interactive movie and move back to the, "Game" part.
They have people playing their games by the millions and they can keep shoveling more onto the public every year. Obviously the people bitching and complaining aren't hurting them. Their feelings are getting hurt. Awww. how sad.
They could stop treating gaemes like it's an interactive movie and move back to the, "Game" part.
Yeah, the community does tend to whine a bit more than they'd ought to, but having the devs say it opens the door for a complacency complex. "Our game isn't bad, it's just all those Negative Nellies out there on the interwebs."
It's funny you bring up EPIC, considering Mark Rein seems to have made it his life's goal to moan about PC gamers after every game they release.Flac00 said:
But yes, maybe the others do know better, or maybe it's because they release things at a proper standard, and know that if something is wrong, it's their fault and they should be trying to fix it (which they do).
well spoken, and i completely agree..Legion said:
But still though there will always be negative comments from people for the sole purpose of beeing negative..
This is why I hate that PR guys are some of the highest paid people in gaming. When said people like Olin freakout because they're people blasting about how bad a game is. All Olin's job is to relay issues to the guys making it and the publishers. If he sees 100+ this is why said game is broken, bad and or unplayable he should relay those comments. Yet he doesn't have to relay all the each ill tempered "this game is a piece of fucking ass garbage" but he has to remember that those comments most likely have some truth in them its just said person could have typed it when they were in a bad mood. I like the PC and PS3 players of BLOPS that truly found the game as a fucking piece of garbage.
Games cost too much for these cheap, lazy ass short cuts that cost the company more money and headaches down the road. Most gamers want to enjoy the game and have fun. Yet when they're major, hard to not notice problems with your game. People want it fixed if it keeps them for enjoying the game. Olin needs to humble himself just because they pointed out the people you work for sold them a defective, sub par product. Doesn't mean you blame them for the reasons why you can grow as a company.
Games cost too much for these cheap, lazy ass short cuts that cost the company more money and headaches down the road. Most gamers want to enjoy the game and have fun. Yet when they're major, hard to not notice problems with your game. People want it fixed if it keeps them for enjoying the game. Olin needs to humble himself just because they pointed out the people you work for sold them a defective, sub par product. Doesn't mean you blame them for the reasons why you can grow as a company.
I think the problem is that game developers tend to be prima-donnas who want to go off in their own little direction with things without caring what the fans happen to think. In general they want to be lauded with praise for "giving us this wonderful product" without bothering to consider that what they are selling is pretty bloody expensive. The guy who pays $60 for a game is pretty much committed since they can't return it (especially if it involves an online or registration code to make work), as one of the threads in the message forums I just responded to points out, there aren't all that many people who buy 20+ games a year (every couple of weeks), the guy doing the complaining while playing the game is doing so because if he wants to game he's stuck with what he purchused.
To be honest it's the developers themselves who ultimatly seperate "signal from noise" and decide which is which. Probably the best example of the prima-donna attitude from game developers nowadays is Bioware. Bioware pulled a stunt where they asked the community what they thought of the entire "Hawke" thing, sending out feelers. The response was overwhelmingly negative through the entire community, the basic attitude being "we want to make our own character, choose races, and have numerous backround options as that was part of what sold us on the first game", the most positive thing I saw with any numerical presence
was the "trust Bioware" crowd who also didn't seem to like it, but were siding with the developer as fanboys who felt if they liked the idea it was probably the correct one. Bioware then turned around and continued with the whole "Hawke" thing (when they could have pushed the game up a few months and changed things around based on the fan reception which they allegedly wanted), and what's more decided to act like there was a massive positive response to this, when really they must have had some serious selective filtering to believe that.
See, the thing is about gaming communities is that it's pretty rare to actually see a true "roasting" of the product. Typically a game with "issues" has most of the people going off about the same things. This is a problem when the developer itself doesn't want to make those changes. By simply ignoring the fan base and charging "full steam ahead" while pretending it cares, it of course keeps the fires burning, and oftentimes rallies the same people buying their product against the company itself.
Now truthfully I think it would help a lot if games were less expensive. At $60 a pop (irregardless of justifications) people are going to be critical of the product on a level they wouldn't be if the game simply cost less. What's more in a day and age where a game that cost millions and a game that cost tens of millions are retailing for the same exact price due to price setting and non-competition within the industry, it means that the fans are going to be riding a game that cost a lot less to develop very hard simply because it isn't as good/high quality as one that cost a lot more. To the game industry it's easy to dismiss the fans by going "well we did what we could within the amount of time the budget let us work for", but to the end user all that matters is he paid the same price for that game as one with a lot more time and money invested in it. It's basically the game industry crippling itself before it even gets to the point of receiving feedback.
Also there is simply the issue that criticism leads to discussion, as there is a lot to talk about. Simply singing the praises of a game and having people go "yeah" is going to lead to dead forums because there isn't a whole lot to talk about to be honest. It's not like gaming is producing ongoing plotlines over the course of enough material to generate communities based on that. I mean "Dragon Age", "Mass Effect", or "Final Fantasy" have some okay plotlines, and can hold down some shallow conversation, but it's nothing compared to say
the communities shows like "Lost" (Losties) and "X-Files" (Xphilles) have produced for example. There just isn't the depth of minutae and material to keep people occupied.
Thanks for reading this far for those that did.
To be honest it's the developers themselves who ultimatly seperate "signal from noise" and decide which is which. Probably the best example of the prima-donna attitude from game developers nowadays is Bioware. Bioware pulled a stunt where they asked the community what they thought of the entire "Hawke" thing, sending out feelers. The response was overwhelmingly negative through the entire community, the basic attitude being "we want to make our own character, choose races, and have numerous backround options as that was part of what sold us on the first game", the most positive thing I saw with any numerical presence
was the "trust Bioware" crowd who also didn't seem to like it, but were siding with the developer as fanboys who felt if they liked the idea it was probably the correct one. Bioware then turned around and continued with the whole "Hawke" thing (when they could have pushed the game up a few months and changed things around based on the fan reception which they allegedly wanted), and what's more decided to act like there was a massive positive response to this, when really they must have had some serious selective filtering to believe that.
See, the thing is about gaming communities is that it's pretty rare to actually see a true "roasting" of the product. Typically a game with "issues" has most of the people going off about the same things. This is a problem when the developer itself doesn't want to make those changes. By simply ignoring the fan base and charging "full steam ahead" while pretending it cares, it of course keeps the fires burning, and oftentimes rallies the same people buying their product against the company itself.
Now truthfully I think it would help a lot if games were less expensive. At $60 a pop (irregardless of justifications) people are going to be critical of the product on a level they wouldn't be if the game simply cost less. What's more in a day and age where a game that cost millions and a game that cost tens of millions are retailing for the same exact price due to price setting and non-competition within the industry, it means that the fans are going to be riding a game that cost a lot less to develop very hard simply because it isn't as good/high quality as one that cost a lot more. To the game industry it's easy to dismiss the fans by going "well we did what we could within the amount of time the budget let us work for", but to the end user all that matters is he paid the same price for that game as one with a lot more time and money invested in it. It's basically the game industry crippling itself before it even gets to the point of receiving feedback.
Also there is simply the issue that criticism leads to discussion, as there is a lot to talk about. Simply singing the praises of a game and having people go "yeah" is going to lead to dead forums because there isn't a whole lot to talk about to be honest. It's not like gaming is producing ongoing plotlines over the course of enough material to generate communities based on that. I mean "Dragon Age", "Mass Effect", or "Final Fantasy" have some okay plotlines, and can hold down some shallow conversation, but it's nothing compared to say
the communities shows like "Lost" (Losties) and "X-Files" (Xphilles) have produced for example. There just isn't the depth of minutae and material to keep people occupied.
Thanks for reading this far for those that did.