"Gamer Entitlement": Current state of gaming journalism and industry

[bastardofmelbourne]

1. A strawman argument is when you mischaracterize your opponent's position, argue against the mischaraterization, and claim victory for defeating the argument. Basically it's arguing against a simulacrum of the original argument, not the argument itself. It is not just misrepresenting someone's position.

What's the difference between arguing against a mischaracterisation and arguing against a misrepresentation? More importantly, if I'm misrepresenting my opponent's position, how am I not arguing against that misrepresentation? I'm either not arguing, or I'm not actually misrepresenting him. And if I am arguing against my misrepresentation of his position, how is that not a straw man?

I'm having difficulty understanding the distinction you're imposing here. That's all.

However, apparently, voicing their criticisms is NOT self-defeating as it is actually serving what they want them to do - according to Capcom.

Just as a clarification; the act of voicing their criticisms was not self-defeating. The criticism itself was self-defeating. Specifically, this reasoning;

1. Ninja Theory made the new DMC game.
2. Ninja Theory make bad games.
3. Therefore, the quality of the new DMC game is irrelevant. All I need to do is say Ninja Theory made it, and that is criticism enough.

The problem there, if you aren't seeing it, is that the reasoning is circular. Whether or not NT make bad games depends on the quality of their games, and no other factor. You can't say "The quality of the game is irrelevant because NT make bad games." That's ass-backwards. The quality of the games is what determines whether NT make bad games. If DMC is a decent game - which critics say it is - then the second point is false. By using the second point to dismiss the question of whether it's a good game, you've created a circular argument, because the validity of the second point depends on the quality of the games.

It's like saying the new Forrest Gump film is bad because Michael Bay directed it, and he directs bad movies. That argument has no room for the question of whether or not the new film is any good. Ultimately, the criticism should be founded in the quality of the actual game, not one's opinions of the developer.

If you regard the intentions of the fanbase as to trash the new DMC and make it look as bad as possible, then no. This criticism was not self-defeating. But as an honest criticism, it undermines itself. Take from that what you will.

snippity

I can't really comment on whether or not Capcom's point is actually valid. The shitstorm curried up by the fanbase may or may not be the reason behind the lower-than-expected sales. Answering that question requires sales data that Capcom hasn't actually made public. It's much more likely that it's a combination of several factors. And while the fan shitstorm is only one of several possible causes for the lower-than-expected sales, it is a plausible one. Capcom is entirely within their rights to say that the vocal and often unreasonable shit-stirring of the DMC hatedom contributed to lowered sales.

The problem I have with the OP is that it's incredibly partisan. The OP clearly doesn't like the new DMC, or Capcom, or Ninja Theory. He's perfectly willing to blame the low sales on Capcom's poor PR, even though he's conflating Capcom's PR with articles written by independent journalists. But he's conveniently ignoring the possibility that the bad press cuased by a vocal minority may have contributed to those lowered sales - even though he said in his post that he told everyone he knew not to buy the game. He's also conviently avoiding the question of whether the game is any good, because he knows he's swimming against the current of critical opinion.

Basically, Capcom is making a reasonable point that the negative fan reaction generated bad press and hurt sales. It might not be true, we don't have the facts, but it's plausible, and Capcom's not unjustified in saying it. In response, the OP is mischaracterising it (Capcom thinks it's entitled to our money after treating us like shit!) for an ulterior motive (making Capcom look like the usual callous corporate overlord). I don't think that's fair. It's not fair to Capcom and Ninja Theory, who've made a decent game that underperformed, and it's not fair to the reviewers, who are implicitly accused of corruption in giving the game a good score.

 

[xDarc]

So by your own admittance their complaints was not based the product, but on previous transgressions?

Is that justified?

I am finding it harder and harder to believe you when you say that you didn't have stake in this before the game was released.

I never played DMC, any of them, ever. I don't care. All I keep thinking while reading this thread is who in the fuck cares if the fans raged and scared everyone? Maybe you shouldn't have pissed them off in the first place if you wanted to sell your game?

And another thing- I am not capable of understanding how gamers today are entitled. It does not compute. We used to buy games like Doom, Duke, Quake, C&C, StarCraft, WarCraft, Heroes of Might and Magic, etc. - and we would play that shit FOR YEARS. We would mod it, make maps, many features to customize your experience were built into the game.

Nothing was locked on disc, nothing was only available in the uber-supper-hardened edition, developers gave out modding tools and other cool freebies to keep you playing their game... so that when they released the next one you were totally there.

After xbox 360 I stopped buying games almost entirely because that marked the end of a golden era. I've bought less than 5 games every year for the past 6 years. Most years just 2-3. That's when the quality went down, games started to feel more like long movies that you never wanted to watch again. I'm just now thinking of trying Dead Space (never played any of them) on Jim Sterling's proclamation that it was the best new IP of the past generation.

So when people start saying oh the fans are just entitled brats, I'm just like WTF? How can anyone who has been playing these games since the NES was a NEW THING seriously see the way things are today as anything but a pile of shit? When has a console ever been languishing for EIGHT YEARS? It just so happens that one of the longest running consoles we ever see happens during a huge shift to shitty little mobile games aimed at the general population. I'm pissed off about that because I'm a PC gamer with a graphics card that costs 6 bills and I'm still playing games ported over designed for 8 year old hardware.

So much shit pisses me off that I'm just going to stop now. My time is limited.

 

[xDarc]

Understand I am not supporting.... unprofessional behavior.... but that isn't what is about. OP tried to argue that fan rage was justified on the basis that he didn't like the development team due to previous transgressions. And by previous transgressions we are talking quality of previous games.

I really didn't see him trying to justify the fan rage. I stopped reading the thread where I quoted. I'm saying I don't see how it matters and you shouldn't be trying to condemn fans and he shouldn't be trying to justify all of their collective rage... if developers piss off their fans, the developers should not act butt hurt when their game bombs- the onus is on them to say what did WE do wrong?

I just don't see why this needs to be any more complicated then that, beyond there is an internet and people have time to spend on it.

 

[Ryank1908]

I'd just like to start by saying that, I am a huge Devil May Cry fan, and while I haven't played DmC yet, I thoroughly intend to as soon as I have enough money. That said, being a long-term fan, I can see why people are pissed off about it, and let's not be so childish as to just relegate it to being about Dante's hair colour. It's about quite a few changes, some perceived, some actual, to the gameplay, the atmosphere of the game, and to Dante's character. They're not necessarily views I agree with but you cannot just invalidate someone's opinion like that -- by making out they're throwing their toys around about some minor, perceived slight.

On the subject of 'entitlement,' I have no idea when it became an insult?

You know what? I am entitled. I am entitled to have a strong and passionate opinion on the future direction of League of Legends, or the development choices used in production of Wasteland 2. I am entitled to do so because I am a gigantic fan of both of these games, I have been following them since their inception, and I have spent a shit-ton of money on them both.

You see, gaming is an incredibly expensive, time-consuming hobby to have. When each game is such a big deal and so expensive, some with recurring charges if you want to keep playing them or support the developer, then it's pretty easy to feel screwed when a game you've previously supported for so long and for so much cash turns into something you don't want. You essentially supported the developer in their hardest time, gave them the money they needed to consider their game a success, e.t.c.

In an industry where developers and publishers can often completely screw their fanbase with a couple of decisions made during development to include Online DRM or single-player microtransactions, someone NEEDS to stand up and say, 'look, this is shit, I keep giving you my money, but if this keeps up, I'm not going to.'

Because we are entitled to an opinion. To vote with our wallets. We are entitled, and that's not an insult, that's a right. In my eyes, if you drop over $180 on buying the Mass Effect games, more if you picked up DLC, comics, statuettes, special editions, e.t.c, and then you play each game once or twice (adding up to, what, well over 100 hours) then you are perfectly within your rights to have a go at the developer if they write a lazy ending.

 

[xDarc]

And the outrage based on the looks of Dante alone (don't try to deny it, it was there and it was big) was just idiotic.

The validity of, or justification for, fan criticism does not matter. If fans don't like it, developers should fix it. If the developer does not fix it and their game tanks, it is the developers fault. It's not a two-way relationship where fans encourage someone to take their favorite series and use it as a canvas for some new blood dev's creative expression- fan's want they want. If you know what they want and you don't give it to them, it's silly to blame them later.

The other dude was talking about fan's wanting an ego stroke- but how big of an ego do you have to have to make something and blame everyone but yourself when people reject it?

Gaming industry needs house cleaning. Too many self-obsessed neo-hipsters climbing to the top of the development scene. Games were much better when developers were humble nerds who made games out of passion for gaming, not because they wanted status as having "made it" or to use games as an outlet for their artistic expressions.

Gaming does not need such people. Just need people who wanna make good games.

Maybe I ought to quit my job, sell my house, and go out to wherever the hell all the studios are at and go kick some ass all the way back to the early 90's before developers thought they were rockstars.

 

[Vegosiux]

In my opinion, there's three things that define gamer entitlement: arrogance, deceit, and ignorance. It's the belief that a game developer is required to abide by whatever you think they should do, regardless of whether or not others agree with you. It's the idea that the ends (getting what you want) justifies the means, and knowingly misleading people (say, with images of out-of-context Twitter responses) is no problem as long as it gets people to agree with you. It's the thought that one should not be required to actually know the product or even bother to do a bit of research themselves to judge it properly.

So yes, there are plenty of entitled gamers. And rants like the OP of this thread are often outrage in response to developers daring to call out entitled gamers as the self-centered people they are. Being a BioWare fan, I see this all of the time: blatantly-false complaints, outrage over a developer doing something not because it is low quality but because it isn't what you wanted them to do, complete ignorance over the topic of their complaints, expressing a stance one second and admitting that they know information which completely contradicts their stance the next. And on being called out on these things, the entitled gamer will typically do one of three things: hurl immature insults, ignore you and continue doing exactly what you called them out on, or both.

The number of people who really throw a fit over these kinds of things - ME3 not having an ending they approve of and DmC being a reboot - is actually a very small minority of the people who play the games. Therefore, the entitled gamers have to do everything they can to make it seem like they're in the majority, lest the developer get it in their heads that doing something the entitled gamers don't approve of will make for a good game.

But here's the kicker. The word "entitled" means something else. It means that you have a recognized right to something. Like, you're entitled to a salary if you work, you're entitled to healthcare if you get sick, you're entitled to charge people for renting out a place you own. And you're entitled to your opinion, of course, what you're not entitled to is having your opinion go unopposed.

Now, for the topic at hand, let me tell you what I'm "entitled" to.

I am "entitled" to, one, voicing my complaints in a reasonable and civil manner, and two, taking my money elsewhere if I'm not convinced the product is worth its price, or if I am not satisfied with it. For any reason whatsoever. Even if it's just the color of Dante's hair, I am well within my rights ("entitled") to say I don't like it, and to not buy the game.

I am not "entitled" to developers catering to my specific tastes, of course, so in the upper example, I am under no circumstance "entitled" to demanding Dante's hair color be changed just because I want it to be changed, nor am I "entitled" to freedom from criticism for such a dislike.

There is a flip side, however.

The developers/publishers are not "entitled" to my money. I do not owe them anything, just like they do not owe me anything. If they fail to deliver what they promised, I will cut my losses and take my money elsewhere in the future (if I was merely disappointed and experienced loss of trust), or claim a refund for a product that did not do what I was lead to believe it would do (in case of having been sold an actually faulty product); and that's final - and nobody, nobody gets to blame me for choosing for myself what I want to do with my disposable income and where to spend it.

 

[lapan]

It's clearly not just about the hair. It's a shame that everyone keeps spurting the same crap about that, even a lot of reviewers are spreading this myth.

Gameplay:

Stylesystem is now mostly damage based, making Demon weapons better by default. There is less motivation to switch between weapons now. Having enemies that can only be hurt by one weapon type limits your playstyle further. Big combos are useless if you can dish out more damage by demon-dodging and attacking twice with the axe.
The whips feel like a worse, more clunky version of Neros arm. Since they are on the same buttons as the weapon switching i found myself swinging around on mistake a lot.
It is much too easy to stay in the air and only a few enemies can actually counterattack you there. There is also a gliding bug which hasn't been fixed that allows you to simply skip large parts of the levels.
Demon dodge and Overcharge are retardedly overpowered and make quick work even of bosses on ANY difficulty.

While the plattforming wasn't that bad, it was overused. It felt like over half the game was filled with plattforming. For every battle you spend at least as long jumping around. Actual puzzles are rare.

Thanks to the many cutscene interruptions the bossfights frequently bug out, resulting in the bosses not attacking or being invunerable. Tweets to NT about those bugs have been ignored so i'm pessimistic about those being fixed.

Examples:

Spoiler

Hunter being stuck:
Slurm Queen being stuck:
Vergil not attacking:
Vergil getting to negative HP and turning invunerable:

infinite grappling and jumping with the whips (remember that most enemies can't attack you while airbound):
Flying:

Graphics:

Designwise most of limbo looks impressive, though the tar effects and bloom are overused a lot. The graphic detail sometimes seems worse than in DMC4 though. Facial animation also seems to be off at times, resulting in some rather weird expressions.

Audio:

While dubstep and screamo aren't my thing, i'm sure other people could enjoy them more. Voiceacting was fine over all.

Story:

The story tried to take itself more seriously this time, but was a rather clichee "they live" clone.

Characters:

I'm not against the new look, it's more the new personalities that rub me the wrong way. Dante and Vergil come off as big assholes for me. Vergil in particular in his assasination scene. I rather prefered Dantes old over-the-top personality that didn't take anything seriously. Mundus was more relateable than both of them for me.

Sparda sadly got the shaft in this version of the story and everyone quickly forgets about him after Dantes flashbacks. A sad fall from a legendary demon hero to a minor character.

Kat quickly falls into the "token love-interest" role and her role in the story shrinks. Dante suddenly begins defending her and Vergil starts to try and get rid off her out of the blue.

 

[TWEWYFan]

One argument I kept seeing was that people were being too irrational, judging the game by how it compared to "their" Devil May Cry rather than on it's own merits. While my sympathy goes to those people, I can't help but think if that's the case shouldn't have made it a Devil May Cry game! That's what happens if you make something part of a franchise, it's going to be compared to the rest of the series. Furthermore, if people feel an installment is too much of a departure from the series they've come to like they are well within their rights to refuse to buy it and make their displeasure known(within reason of course).

 

[GloatingSwine]

If the fans are dedicating so much of their time and effort to badmouthing a game that's actually pretty good to the extent that they'll petition the White House to have the game pulled from the shelves?

Yes. Capcom has a right to be upset about that. That's bad press, and it'll affect their sales. More importantly, it's totally unjustified, because by all accounts the DMC reboot is actually a decent game.

Whether or not it's a decent game in its own right ceased to matter when they called it Devil May Cry.

It's time to have a conversation about IP value and branding. It's unquestionable that intellectual property has value, that's why you're allowed to copyright it and sell it for money. But why does IP have a value?

IP has a value because it represents a guaranteed audience for the contents of the IP. IP has value in proportion to the number of people who will buy a thing if it is associated with that IP. So, the fans, the ones that are being railed against here, they are the value of the Devil May Cry IP, without the fans of the series, without people who will buy a Devil May Cry game because it is a Devil May Cry game not Bayonetta, or God of War, or Ninja Gaiden, or God Hand, or any other Spectacle Fighter, the IP itself has no value.

So, when you put the name Devil May Cry onto your spectacle fighter, you are doing so specifically to cash in on that IP value, whether you extend the reach of your product beyond existing fans or not, the use of the name is a deliberate attempt to extract money from the guaranteed audience which represent the IP's inherent value.

And when you not only change everything that the fans (who give the IP value) liked the IP for, and whenever it is pointed out by the fans that this is not a product that they want to pay for telling them "well we don't want you anyway it's a reboot for a new audience", and go so far as to include snide insults at the existing fans in the product, but still attempt to cash in on the IP value those fans represent by branding your product with that IP, then it is not only unsurprising that the IP value turns negative, it's entirely appropriate.

If you turn against the thing that gives the IP value, the IP doesn't have value.

 

[Toilet]

Industry: "Vote with your wallets, then we will know what you want!"
*Consumers vote with their wallets*
Industry: "Why didn't you buy our games, you are entitled spoiled whiners!"

I hate the video game industry.

 

[Polite Sage]

I really didn't see him trying to justify the fan rage. I stopped reading the thread where I quoted. I'm saying I don't see how it matters and you shouldn't be trying to condemn fans and he shouldn't be trying to justify all of their collective rage... if developers piss off their fans, the developers should not act butt hurt when their game bombs- the onus is on them to say what did WE do wrong?

I just don't see why this needs to be any more complicated then that, beyond there is an internet and people have time to spend on it.

Thank you. I understand there also are "blind haters" who attack the game simply to satisfy their ego, and also rational people disliking the new direction. None of us knows who are more numerous, though there already are people like

He just ignores that those reasonable reactions were by far the minority.

who are claiming that reasonable reactions were a minority based on no evidence, but that is not the point.

The reason I took "a reasonable fan reaction" was to show that the "professional" writers simply are lumping everyone together, while using a very vulgar way to convey their message. Instead of just saying "you should still give this a try" they ALSO stoop as low as the so called "mindless haters" and lash out at everyone while refusing to engage in a proper discussion. I'm in no way claiming that "all the reviewers who gave DmC a good score are assholes", that is not the point.

Sit down for a bit. These are supposedly adult men, who are paid to write video game reviews for a living. Let that sink in for a moment. If the journalists' reaction had been a simple "I like this game and don't see why people hate it" instead of "fuck you, you're wrong I'm right, grow up, stop bitching" there would have been no reason to make this thread. That's why I also picked up ME3 despite not being a huge fan in the first place, because the two situations are very similar.

Like some people in the thread already mentioned, this kind of prominent fan bashing wouldn't just fly with any other entertainment medium. And "in industry" people wonder why games aren't taken more seriously.

 

[GloatingSwine]

And the outrage based on the looks of Dante alone (don't try to deny it, it was there and it was big) was just idiotic.

Was it?

Consider this: The new Dante fits in indistinguishably with all these guys:

Old Dante? Not so much.

Dante's design was a standout in a sea of homogeneity, if not for being especially good at least for being different. Now, he's the same guy as all the rest of the games.

If you don't see how that creeping homogenisation is a distinct reduction in value not just for DmC but for gaming as a whole then you need to wake up.