"Contrarian" Gamers Suck Says Treyarch

[robinkom]

At the earliest, 8-Bit NES and up, once there were at least some form of standards to get games published on a system.

You're talking circa '84...I can push right back to '77 and that sort of thing was still going on with the VCS, way before the 2600.

But the NES? Metal Gear 1/2, the whole "foofing" shtick, nearby electrics switching on causing the NES to freeze, overheating

No generation has been free of shite games released under "licence".

You didn't need a license to publish on the 2600 or any of the other pre-crash systems, that's why the market crashed. Nintendo is guilty of releasing shit too, but even for all the bugs your example shows, it's not doing anything that is gamebreakingly bad. The difference is, a game like that falls by the wayside and is written off. The shitty, fucked up, glitchy games of today end up being the number 1 Triple A mainstream titles.

I do know that the only constant over the last 30 years is Movie tie-in's. I rarely ever played a good one with a few exceptions:

Batman on NES.
Jurassic Park on Genesis.
True Lies on SNES/Genesis.
The Terminator on Sega CD.
Demolition Man on Sega CD.

Those are all actually quite good but that's 5 out of a sea of horrible tie-in's.

 

[Weaver]

If the game existed solely to provide pleasure it would be free.
CoD exists to make Activision an obscene amount of money, and you can bet the second it stops doing that they'll drop it like a hot potato.

Are irate gamers really holding back the industry's creativity? Treyarch, you aren't a struggling artist searching for his muse; you're one of the most well funded studios in the industry. You can make whatever game you want, but you keep making the same god damn CoD game over and over again.

And really, why should people voice their complaints more clearly at this point? The same flaws that were in CoD4 which were very well articulated, are still in the game and haven't been fixed. If you want to know where to start, go read the CoD4 criticisms.

 

[Undeadpool]

I can see his point but there is a flip side to all this.

If developers/publishers stopped:

- Adding new DLC for games so quickly, even on release date for some; they are discussing Dragon Age 2 DLC already and the game isn't out for over a month yet.
- Stopped tacking on multiplayer to every game series, even if all it's prequels were single player only.
- Stopped churning out sequels like there is no tomorrow, while changing practically nothing.
- Stopped with the failed DRM.
- Waited until games worked fine before releasing them.
- Stopped shipping multiplayer games with 5 maps so they can intentionally wait for a month or two to release new maps that have to be paid for.

Then they'd get a hell of a lot less complaints.

Hence why the only complaints Valve gets are when games not released as soon as people would like. Basically Valve are loved so much that all people want is more of what they are selling.

-The issue with "adding DLC quickly" is that games get a cut-off date in terms of core development. After that date, other things need to be worked on, but the core game needs to be finished. What that means is that a lot of devs either sit around twiddling their thumbs (if they're lucky enough to be a full-time hire) or, much more frequently, get laid off. Day one DLC is something that not only gives full-timers something to do, but increases the amount of time that temps work with the same company.
-I basically agree about iterative sequels, but I think a game gets at least one sequel before we can complain about a lack of change.
-DRM will always fail and it will always be there because people will always be pirating. There have been games where the consumer sets their own price and people STILL pirate it, it's insane, it's sad, it's true.
-I agree with the spirit of games working before release, but the business reality is: deadlines. And after a certain threshold, the improvements stop mattering as much. Look at Gran Turismo 5 or Alan Wake.
-I'll fully agree with this one and even add that they need to stop shoe-horning multiplayer into games on the flawed assumption that it will sell substantially more.

I agree with Olin, ultimately, and can understand his frustration. These are the people who demanded a patch to make the sniper rifle back into the most broken, overused weapon in the game because using it like a real sniper rifle was "nerfed." People who are passionate about something are also the most fickle about that same thing (it's not just videogames either, God help you if you ever check out a music forum) and, of course, there are those who will never be happy with something, will swear that they'll never buy it, and then when the sequel's announced, they'll be the first to whine that too much is changing from the first game.

 

[Doctor Drizzle]

If Treyarch hadn't made a game that was broken on launch day and is giant step backwards in the world of FPS shooters they probably wouldn't have so many "contrarian" gamers to worry about. Black Ops was a sick, sick joke played on consumers. Just wondering how much "creativity" or "innovation" was used in the latest release of COD? His remarks come off as so glib they made me laugh my ass off when I read them. Who does this guy think he is?

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

He does make a very good point. Of course, I do wish it had come from someone else's mouth. Gamers spend to much time bitching about games they don't even play, and constantly deride the fans of those games. It just creates a sour atmosphere on the forum.

 

[Vohn_exel]

This is just the way that comments are going. It's not just games. Go look at any IMDB page, and you'll have nothing but hatred for that movie. It's the same with games, now days. I've began to use it as a indicator. The more people "hate" a game, the more awesome it is. Well...I mean usually there's a limit, but you see what I mean.

 

[SaintWaldo]

Who gave the fainting violet a job in the hothouse?

 

[Kilgengoor]

In my humble opinion this is what happens when you market an incredibly mainstream and popular game that spans over three gaming platforms. Niche games usually have a smaller, more cooperative community, and once it grows more and more people just join for the sake of bitching online. It happens to Halo, WoW and of course, CoD.

At least developers maybe will get responsible for the community they market themselves into, instead of letting the reasonable players shoulder all the 11-year-old maniacs shouting on a microphone.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I do know that the only constant over the last 30 years is Movie tie-in's.

Licences (Like CoD) are awesome at spawning totally awful games. They excel in it.

The problem is that Licences also sell games in the bucketloads, as it does with Toys, Films and everything else. And why Michael Bay attached an 80's toy name to his "Dawson's Creek with Explosions" film.

What Treyarch don't seem to understand (or do, but are trying to whitewash) is that game players want something that's not just a homogenous mush delivered to the door, but something with a little bite. Sure, if it's marketed as "THE NEW MUSH" then millions will buy it, but you'll still get thousands bitching about how it's just mush.

Perhaps Treyarch should try Teaching, Nursing or Policework? I hear no-one bitches about them...

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Why are so many gamers quick to ***** about a game that exists solely to provide pleasure?

Because

a) We pay our hard earned money for it.

b) Treyarch keep including things in their games that they know make people enjoy the games less i.e. Second Chance, Panic Knifing etc etc....

 

[Dfskelleton]

What I hate more is the people who instantly diss a game because it's not in the same series as their favorite or made by a different developer than their superior being favorite developer or something.
But yeah, this guy's right. I personally don't care for CoD (it's alright, just not my style), but Treyarch took the words out of my mouth.

 

[Zero=Interrupt]

Why didn't they post a counterpoint to this story:

""Treyarch" Sucks Says Contrarian Gamers".

And they call this fair and balanced? I weep for the state of journalism....

 

[mechanixis]

I mean, yes, there's a lot of stupid people in gaming who just trash certain games because they're mainstream instead of enjoying them for what they are. But saying that it "stunts creativity and innovation" sounds odd coming from him when Call of Duty as a franchise is probably the most serialized, violence-trivializing empowerment fantasy available in gaming. Call of Duty makes its money by pandering to brand loyalties; is it any surprise to them a large portion of the target demographic is petty and less than rational?

I really wish he'd stop saying games are first and foremost about 'fun.' I feel like it's such a juvenile term. 'Fun' is going to the waterpark when you're little, or going to see an action movie Friday night and forgetting about it by Sunday morning. Games should aspire to being a little more engaging and stimulating than that. We invest far too much time and money in the hobby to justify it being nothing more than 'fun.'

 

[meece]

If people care enough to complain about it they've done their job.
....Or else they haven't hence the whining.

 

[tendo82]

Any game with a competitive online component is going to have to deal with contrarian gamers. Online competition just makes a beast out of people. You want to understand or justify why you aren't the best and someone else is.

However we shouldn't confuse people venting competitive frustration with legitimate criticisms about a game's design, difficult as that may be. The dev's suggestion of everyone just shut up and have fun is a thinly veiled way of saying, "We worked really really hard on this and you better appreciate it, dammit." But we all know hard work doesn't necessarily produce a quality result.

 

[GonzoGamer]

If you want the bitching to stop, perhaps you should make a game that doesn't suck. Black Ops deserves all the bitching that it gets, because it's a horrible game. How hard can it be to study CoD4 and copy what it did well? Honestly, Treyarch.

While I am kind of enjoying Blops myself (mind you, I don't play too many games like that) I agree that this guy perhaps need to look at the reasons for people bitching.
While I'm sure that there are plenty of trolls out there saying "this sucks" but I'd like to think that for every five of them there is someone who will give reasons for their displeasure.
It seems like most of the "bitching" that goes on now-a-days revolves around the developers releasing a glitchy product that they may or may not patch later. Not only that but the patches may or may not help any of the serious problems. From what I understand, that's the problem many had with Blops. I didn't run into too many problems personally with Blops but Fallout New Vegas had enough bugs and glitches for 20 games.
That I bitched about because I paid premium price for what felt like a beta.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I only complain about games that I've played, and if those complaints are valid.
The only time I would complain about a game that I haven't played is if the fanbase and marketing won't shut the fuck up about it (Halo:Reach and Black Ops drove me nuts when they first came out) which honestly is more of a complaint about fanboyism and hype than the game itself (though this exacerbates itself when I play the game and it doesn't even come close to living up to the hype).

 

[k-ossuburb]

Can I still ***** about games that have already fallen into obscurity and nobody cares about any more? There were some really terrible games in my day.

Need some examples? Okay, how about "Rise Of The Robots" or "Primal Rage" for the Sega Genesis? My entire weekend (and all the money I had have saved up from whatever I found in the sofa cushions) was wasted on both.

 

[Geoffrey42]

Why are so many gamers quick to ***** about a game that exists solely to provide pleasure?

This is a terrible sentiment. My comedians don't need to be good at what they do? Movies shouldn't be quality? The things that I buy with my money to entertain me shouldn't live up to their sales pitch? Just because things are for "fun", that's no reason that people shouldn't be allowed to approach them in a serious manner, and even be unhappy that the end product is not as good as it could've been.

That aside, the internet is full of unfiltered mean-ness. As a community manager, this man has the unenviable job of sorting through all of the anonymous vitriol and trolls to try and find legitimate concerns and criticisms. On the whole, the internet isn't going to get any nicer, until we figure out how to punch each other through the internet, so suck it up. The internet's rage only impairs creativity to the extent that the company allows it to. If you have a creative vision, and the guts to back it up? Prove it. Publish it. Let the market decide if your vision has worth.

Now... if we want to get into a discussion of how suits and charts and focus groups stifle creativity, then yes, let's talk about that. But angry people on the internet aren't going anywhere, and they can only hurt us if we let them.

 

[Treblaine]

I wouldn't say there is anything particularly wrong with Black Ops, there just isn't anything going for it. COD4 was quite revolutionary in 2007 but it's 2011 now, the franchise's multiplayer may have been refined but it has not evolved and unlike classics like Quake, I don't think it has stood the test of time quite as well.

I'm probably not going to play any more.