Jimquisition: Gamer Entitlement

[LameDuck]

Where is the line between acceptable and unacceptable mechanics?

In the eyes of the beholder, mostly. When it comes to game design it's a matter of taste, so it's mostly a case of "I, as a consumer and fan of the series, did not like what you did with the ending of the game".

In the end all criticism is personal, as it's based on personal opinions. In the case of Mass Effect it went a bit further, as so many people had invested a lot of time - and themselves - into the series and felt cheated. I'm actually more surprised that people focused so much on the ending, instead of the Day 1 DLC which placed a story-important character behind a paywall. In the end he was way less important than previously believed, which was even worse considering he was a Prothean (which was plot-important since the first game and a huge part of the third game) and many fans who actually payed for the DLC felt doubly cheated.

 

[UM536]

Good video Jim. Normally I am wherry of bringing up Anita but you tied the whole discussion up perfectly. It doesn't really matter who fired the first shot, publisher or gamer but before you pull the trigger on that flame(war)-thrower you need to ask yourself if your target deserves the full extent of your rage. Blame is easy, self reflection is hard.

 

[PuckFuppet]

A long while back I made a response to an article on the escapist that covered some of the ground you just thread on.

Spoiler

One of the issues you get when you discuss something like "Is this good?", particularly when it comes to video games which are very individual experiences, is hyperbole.

Was WoW the best thing ever? It was good, it had a very consistent tone and was well designed. However you rarely get people who are able to look at a product without the extremes, then you have the people who tend to swing towards an extreme because they see other people like them there. It is a vicious cycle much more worthy of an article than the banal assessment of recent MMO development cycles.

Is ESO going to fail? Probably, the market is broadly made up of people who are still of the mindset that if you like it you must dislike everything else, the same people who drive the actual cycle that the article was alluding to and are entirely apathetic to the idea of being part of improving the market/industry. More often that not the people who argue either way for a games chances, particularly in a broader public setting, are just dancing to the tune of the executives and the investors.

As an example of that look at EA, regarded as a terrible company and a pox on the entire industry, but easily able to occupy the same space as other "better" companies because any chance of a change is impossible when the market itself is equal parts apathetic and zealous. The zealots drive people one way or the other, keeping franchises afloat regardless of their actual quality, so that those who have associated themselves with a given franchise aren't loyal so much as their are subject to the franchise itself. It is the "If I buy it nothing will change, if I don't buy it those jerks win. Better buy it." effect.

As much as ESO or Wildstar are points of discussion the actual conversation people need to be having is whether or not constantly espousing the ethos of "You like this, therefore you're stupid/wrong and I'm right/better" is something that can be addressed.

Good to see someone addressing it, particularly someone who I often find hard to agree with. That said would you follow the logical leap I made and agree with the idea that this culture of "entitlement"/the reactionary attitudes towards it (regarding games journalists/commentators) are actually driving a lot of what people are most likely to be angry/entitled about?

 

[Rad Party God]

I like Nintendo! and if you don't like them... well, that's completely okay!.

... Well, that wasn't as bad as I expected.

I don't think (or at least remember) I've ever blamed someone for liking something I don't like and as always, I'm with Jim on this one, doing so will only make you look like a spoiled brat and a petty narcisist.

Throwing shit at EA for releasing shitty games like SimCity or Battlefield 4, that's OK!, sending death threats to developers because they reduced the reloading time to a fraction of a second or to a game writer who said she "doesn't like games", that's downright despicable.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Is it so bad to dislike people(because there's a lot of them who like crappy media) or a game/media because its its bad? Its a situation that spirals out of control as we all get worse and worse media.

 

[Wulfram77]

Mixed among things I agree with, I can't help but notice that Mr Sterling is basically saying that consumers complaining about other people is good, but complaining about people in his own profession isn't. I assume that's not quite what was intended, but it's hard to take it any other way.

Reviews are a product, just like games, and if they fail to inform appropriately, then they're bad products and should be complained about. Of course the basic standards of not being a total whatever just because you're on the internet apply, but they apply to complaints about games too. And of course it's subjective about whether a review is good or not, but again that applies to complaints about most things, unless I guess the product just plain doesn't work.

 

[mjharper]

Right here on the Escapist I've seen people hoping that FUN succeed in their recent attack on TB, and not just in their attempt to get his video of their game removed, but in removing every video he has ever made. Why? Because these people don't like TB.

Pretty much fits with Jim's definition of gamer entitlement, that.

How is that entitlement?
People being absolute a-holes maybe? But claiming they're expressing gamer entitlement? WTF.
Some people just want to see the world burn, but they don't go around claiming they're entitled to seeing that happen.

Um, did you watch the video?

"I think it's fucking entitled as fuck if you attack fans of games like Call of Duty, or Flappy Bird, or even Farmville, or any game you don't like. If you hate those games, and want to criticize them, please, go ahead, but once you start imposing your tastes on others, as many gamers have done before, you cross the line from reasonable to bratty. When you call COD fans a cancer because they enjoy a game you don't like, you justify the myth of the entitled gamer. As you do, and yes I'm bringing her up, when you try and drive people like Anita Sarkeesian out of the video game world because you don't like what she has to say, or the way she says it. You are acting as if you are owed a world in which a video you don't like doesn't get to exist. And that's just, well, it's not fair, it's not reasonable, and it's not a valid form of behaviour."

Since Jim himself extended 'gamer entitlement' to include wishing for a world in which videos you don't like don't exist, it's fair to make a comparison with those who wish to see all of TB's videos disappear just because they don't like what he has to say. Even at the cost of siding with such a despicable company as FUN seems to be.

You may disagree with Jim's definition, but all I was doing was pointing out that it is applicable in the FUN/TB controversy as well.

Personally, I think it's pretty damn entitled to expect the world to be moulded around your (I mean, in general, not you personally) opinion. Though it might also be called egotistic, or relativist, or solipsist. I remember a lecture I went to once where someone stood up and said, "None of you exist: you're all a figment of my imagination." And the lecturer responded, "No, you're just an arrogant bastard."

 

[Weresquirrel]

I suppose the crux of it could be: Feel free to get angry if it actually affects you.

A critic liking/disliking something you dislike/like (delete as appropriate) doesn't affect you.
A company trying to enact a harmful/shady business practice DOES affect you (or at least the gaming environment as a whole even if you don't personally buy the game).

 

[Reyold]

Good show, Jim. It feels like this one's needed addressing for some time now.

 

[Crazy Zaul]

I've never seen anyone mention the entitlement issue ever since the ME3 crisis. It pretty much went away a few weeks after the extended cut.

 

[xPixelatedx]

Jim, can you really blame people for being mad at the near perfect reviews for games like Mass Effect 3? I know you keep defending other game journalists, and keep saying there is no way anyone is giving anything but their honest opinion and they can have any opinion they want. The latter is most definitely true, but do you really blame people for not believing the former? The reason why I am using Mass Effect 3 is because that thing got pretty high reviews and good praise, while simultaneously being one of the most reviled and hated games ever made. The fallout was so bad the better business bureau was involved and certain places were offering full refunds for the game; even if it had been played. I've never even seen that before...

People were upset at the reviews, and yeah some people acted like spoiled brats and demanded they be changed. That I don't agree with, I'm with you there. People can have their stupid opinions, thats fine, but I don't think other people have to swallow BS either. I have no doubt Mass Effect 3 was potentially a good game for some people, maybe even great to others... but 90/100s, 100/100s, 9/10s and 10/10s!? Jim, are you telling me the kind of game that would create as much negative feedback as ME3 did is deserving of those scores? If a game that badly received is deserving of 10s and inane praise, then we might as well do away with game reviews all together, because there is no longer a use for them. That's why people are upset, this is a confirmation that A:'We are being bullshitted by people being paid to praise things', or B:The rating systems are so bizarre they don't even make any logical sense anymore, so they cannot be used for or applied to purchases of average consumers in any way'.

 

[Grim Sterling]

The two things I see that become pivotal around the concept of 'entitlement' are 'necessity' and 'intent'.

is/was it necessary?

What is the intent?

Often it seems like most gamers(or the generally highly vocal ones) do not take the time to look at those questions in terms of "as it pertains to the company" and only "as it pertains to the consumer". So you get this skewed visage of game companies doing everything with ill intent, even if said things are not really necessary.

On the other side, game publishers (and media folk alike) look at gamers and think they're "entitled" because they're just wanting everything their way (intent) and feel their personal satisfaction is always necessary.

Broad generalizations, I know. But what it boils down to is most folk don't even begin to consider (and I mean stand on the other side of the fence and force themselves to side with the other folk) the other side and try to give anyone the 'benefit of the doubt'.

I saw a lot of this back on an old game publisher board I frequented and it was an ongoing debate in regards to region locking, game design, choices of what to publish, decisions about localization, and all kinds of other game features/choices people disagreed with. And in each case you had 2 sides, the folk who took the time to consider things from a business/developer standpoint (who were labeled as blind company fan boys) and the other who wanted things how they should be and would rage against the companies in any fashion they could to be heard and try to enact change (usually called whiner-babies and entitled). Sadly there is a certain degree to legitimacy and reality on both sides, but..

Why is it most fans (since this is not strictly speaking a gamer unique trend) are so polarized?

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Right here on the Escapist I've seen people hoping that FUN succeed in their recent attack on TB, and not just in their attempt to get his video of their game removed, but in removing every video he has ever made. Why? Because these people don't like TB.

Pretty much fits with Jim's definition of gamer entitlement, that.

Yeah, with the earlier youtube copyright stuff there were people saying the same kind of stuff about other people too.

Ironically, the people they were talking about, TB likely included, were the ones least likely to be hurt by the whole thing in the long run. ;p

I thought the video was horrible enough when you used the forbidden word but then you took it even further by naming she who most not be named. Jim are you trying to open the gates of hell?

Yo man. 0.0 Don't open this spoiler....

Spoiler: Really. Do not do it. It has got a scary thing inside.

[https://imageshack.com/i/j68lk4j]

Spoiler: :D Oh, never mind. The scary thing is in here. 0.0 Don't open it....

D: I warned you!!!

[https://imageshack.com/i/5ii6cjj]

Spoiler: Best. Fan. EVER!xD

[https://imageshack.com/i/5ii6cjj]
I get so fucking sick of anita whatever the fuck her last name is. Just some ***** with a cheap youtube show. She doesn't work in the industry. I like playing games with hot chicks in revealing clothing. And yes you smartass motherfuckers, I know porn exist and it's free. Guess what? They aren't very good games. For the most part anyway. I don't have a issue with the butt-shot or clothing in mass effect. If those game being made and me playing them means women are being put down or can't get into the industry, guess what? Not my fucking problem. I haven't watched her show since the first one. I don't read threads about her, I really don't want to think about her and if she wants to get on her soapbox and go on about whatever, whatever I guess. But then fat-ass jim, bob and people like them bring her up EVERY 5 FUCKING MINUTES!!! I mean what the fuck? Then you ***** at me about not leaving her alone? Guess what jim, you fat ass motherfucking piece of trash, maybe, just maybe, follow me on this, if you shut the fuck up about her, I could forgot about her? "Oh but I shouldn't forgot about her because I have to talk about her"? Guess what else? I've heard her point. I don't agree, I'll never agree, so what the fuck is the point of me talking about her? Because you need to browbeat me into agreeing with her like you and mass effect 3 so I'll "grow" as a person. How big of you. Guess what jim? mind your own fucking business. I don't need your personal input in me as a human being or whatever nor do I what it.

Jim. We have found your greatest fan. Someone who loves your work so much, and has enough passion and drive to parody the behavior you're talking about today for everyone's entertainment!

This great WONDERFUL person, took time out of their day, to fake complain about a 10 second part of your show, and all for our educational benefit!

Thank God for you, Jim! And thank YOU, for inspiring such faithful and selfless fans! ;D

 

[Stavros Dimou]

...but because it was bad for a GAME, specifically an RPG TRILOGY, mechanic wise. ...

Where is the line between acceptable and unacceptable mechanics?

Specifically for the Mass Effect series ?
Think about that: On the box of the first game of the series,the description on the back of the box cover names the game a "RPG".On the box of the third game of the series,in the description on the back side of the cover the game is described as a "Shooter".
Why do you think EA changed the description of the latest game,and what does that actually means ?

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Jim, can you really blame people for being mad at the near perfect reviews for games like Mass Effect 3? I know you keep defending other game journalists, and keep saying there is no way anyone is giving anything but their honest opinion and they can have any opinion they want.

People getting mad about reviews is pretty damn pathetic. I mean, they are just reviews, they don't affect the actual games at all.

The ME3 scenario is the opposite of how it usually goes, though - where people whine about their favorite game being given a less-than-perfect score, who will ***** and moan about a game being given an 8/10 for Jim's sake!

 

[Aardvaarkman]

I've just seen some videos of people countering her points and being critical of her in valid, if not always sound, ways.

Have you completely missed almost every Escapist thread that mentioned her? (Rhetorical question. I know you haven't as you have commented on them.)

In this very thread someone comments that the mention of her name might open the gates of Hell. Another post in this thread calls her a ***** and complain that Jim and Bob even mention her.

Doesn't sound like the the valid, logical, criticism that you are claiming it is.

 

[mjharper]

...but because it was bad for a GAME, specifically an RPG TRILOGY, mechanic wise. ...

Where is the line between acceptable and unacceptable mechanics?

Specifically for the Mass Effect series ?
Think about that: On the box of the first game of the series,the description on the back of the box cover names the game a "RPG".On the box of the third game of the series,in the description on the back side of the cover the game is described as a "Shooter".
Why do you think EA changed the description of the latest game,and what does that actually means ?

Hang on, you're making an argument on the basis of the copy on the back of a box?

Regardless of what you think about the mechanics of ME3, the word 'shooter' on the back of the box is advertising, nothing more, nothing less. Pick up any game, book, or movie, and tell me that the blurb on the box is an accurate description of the thing itself.

EA wanted to try to capture a different audience. Anyone interested in RPGs would already know what the game was, and probably already be playing it. But put 'shooter' on the cover, and maybe someone who wouldn't have given it a second glance will pick it up.

Any anyway, regardless of the endings, were the mechanics in ME3 really that different from ME2?