Jimquisition: Gamer Entitlement

[Thanatos2k]

Anyways, I think if one really wants to be in control of the company that one is customer of, don't just buy when they are ethical and refuse when they are not.

Remember those shareholders that are often complained about? One of those shareholders could be you.

After all as a shareholder you have more at stake in the company than you do as a fan or customer. While you might not be able to change things at a production level, if you and many other shareholders feel upper management is doing a shitty job then perhaps one can vote some of them out.

HA. Investment companies and uber-rich brokers own the shares. You do know that just by buying stock you don't actually get a real say in what a company does, right? You get to cast your vote for your percentage of the total shares, all 0.00236 percent of them.

Good luck changing anything.

Besides, the whole point is the right thing and the thing that makes the most money often aren't the same. Stockholders vote for the latter, EVERY TIME.

I didn't say to do it alone and it probably won't happen in a month either.

But it is a possibility perhaps in 40 years that many shareholder have grown up with videogames would know what it is like to have ignorant shareholders condoning bad business practices. Of course, they will always be out of touch with the youth 40 years from now. But that is still better than being out of touch by never having played videogames ever.

Even if they grew up with video games, they'd have to care about them more than MONEY. Guess which one will come out on top 40 years from now?

 

[Pogilrup]

Anyways, I think if one really wants to be in control of the company that one is customer of, don't just buy when they are ethical and refuse when they are not.

Remember those shareholders that are often complained about? One of those shareholders could be you.

After all as a shareholder you have more at stake in the company than you do as a fan or customer. While you might not be able to change things at a production level, if you and many other shareholders feel upper management is doing a shitty job then perhaps one can vote some of them out.

HA. Investment companies and uber-rich brokers own the shares. You do know that just by buying stock you don't actually get a real say in what a company does, right? You get to cast your vote for your percentage of the total shares, all 0.00236 percent of them.

Good luck changing anything.

Besides, the whole point is the right thing and the thing that makes the most money often aren't the same. Stockholders vote for the latter, EVERY TIME.

I didn't say to do it alone and it probably won't happen in a month either.

But it is a possibility perhaps in 40 years that many shareholder have grown up with videogames would know what it is like to have ignorant shareholders condoning bad business practices. Of course, they will always be out of touch with the youth 40 years from now. But that is still better than being out of touch by never having played videogames ever.

Even if they grew up with video games, they'd have to care about them more than MONEY. Guess which one will come out on top 40 years from now?

Well do you at least consider the possibility that some of them know from experience what it is like to be at the receiving end of consumer unfriendly business practices and perhaps choose management that would refrain from the worst of those practices?

 

[Atmos Duality]

This video was a long time coming, given how ugly and overblown the subject has become.
I've raged against the stupidity of the entitlement argument for years. It's mostly just pretense.

Markets, especially luxury markets, are driven by self-interest. "Entitlement" is inherent to both producers and consumers.
Wagging one's finger at someone else for acting "entitled" in such a context is like trying to shame a dog for its ability to bark.

It's asinine.

If someone isn't happy with what they're getting, lets just say that problem will eventually remedy itself with or without moral pretense.

Companies that charge more for less will eventually lose customers to competition, while consumers who ask for more than is feasible for the market to offer will eventually give up and leave.

 

[Thanatos2k]

Anyways, I think if one really wants to be in control of the company that one is customer of, don't just buy when they are ethical and refuse when they are not.

Remember those shareholders that are often complained about? One of those shareholders could be you.

After all as a shareholder you have more at stake in the company than you do as a fan or customer. While you might not be able to change things at a production level, if you and many other shareholders feel upper management is doing a shitty job then perhaps one can vote some of them out.

HA. Investment companies and uber-rich brokers own the shares. You do know that just by buying stock you don't actually get a real say in what a company does, right? You get to cast your vote for your percentage of the total shares, all 0.00236 percent of them.

Good luck changing anything.

Besides, the whole point is the right thing and the thing that makes the most money often aren't the same. Stockholders vote for the latter, EVERY TIME.

I didn't say to do it alone and it probably won't happen in a month either.

But it is a possibility perhaps in 40 years that many shareholder have grown up with videogames would know what it is like to have ignorant shareholders condoning bad business practices. Of course, they will always be out of touch with the youth 40 years from now. But that is still better than being out of touch by never having played videogames ever.

Even if they grew up with video games, they'd have to care about them more than MONEY. Guess which one will come out on top 40 years from now?

Well do you at least consider the possibility that some of them know from experience what it is like to be at the receiving end of consumer unfriendly business practices and perhaps choose management that would refrain from the worst of those practices?

40 years from now they'll be playing video games in our minds projected into our brains. The game will automatically make purchases by scanning your mind for what it desires.

I don't think people will be deciding on the business practices of free to play mobile games.

 

[Atmos Duality]

In any case, a review can't cause you to buy a game - that's your own personal decision.

I believe in this principle personally.

However, in practice, I have no doubt that are some who are either too lazy or weak willed to make their own decisions.
They take their disposable income and just throw it at the first thing that looks shiny or with high ratings without bothering to learn anything more about what they're buying.

I can see being disappointed in a game, but being angry about it just doesn't seem rational. If a game is enough to make you angry, then you might be better off either looking elsewhere for entertainment, or looking into anger management sessions.

Actually, I can see outright anger being viable response, but only if the game turns out to being something that is completely different from what was advertised, like a bait-n-switch scheme. (Aliens: Colonial Marines is an obvious example)

But I agree with this point in general, as many people project anger to express the result of disappointment in order to draw attention.

 

[Calbeck]

Well said, Jim. There's not a thing I would add or subtract from that commentary.

 

[Lotet]

Look I have watched, rewatched, and rewatched again all of Anita's Videos over and over again. The woman straight out blames a perpetuated misogynistic view of women, by gamers, because of how they are portrayed in video games.

As in all you right here, are misogynists because of games portrayal of women. That is her very thesis. I am not making this shit up, that is her damned basic premise for all her videos.

Did she ever say that explicitly?

Did she, in any statement online or off, explicitly say that every member of the gaming community is misogynistic?

Look at her thesis statement.

OK, I looked at it, she never blamed gamers for anything. She mention Lara Croft once and considering it was written 4 years ago, it was relevant.

Please don't tell people to watch or read something as a substitute for a real answer.

Did you come to your conclusion after you read her Thesis or was it after you watched a video / read an article from someone talking about her thesis?.

 

[Stavros Dimou]

It's happening everywhere.
PERFECT DARK ZERO played nothing like PERFECT DARK.
DUKE NUKEM FOREVER played nothing like DUKE NUKEM 3D
WOLFENSTEIN 2009 played nothing like RETURN TO CASTLE WOLFENSTEIN
DUNGEON KEEPER MOBILE plays nothing like DUNGEON KEEPER 1,2
PREY 2 looked nothing like PREY 1
And the list goes on...

OCARINA OF TIME played nothing like A LINK TO THE PAST*
METROID PRIME played nothing like SUPER METROID*
MARIO 64 played nothing like SUPER MARIO WORLD
GOLDENEYE played nothing like WHATEVER CRAPPY JAMES BOND GAMES CAME OUT BEFORE IT
RESIDENT EVIL 4 played nothing like EVERY PREVIOUS RESIDENT EVIL

Franchises and series have to depart from their roots, otherwise those properties become stagnant. Many of the most acclaimed games of the modern era came about because developers weren't afraid to step out of the shadow of the past and do something different. We would never have gotten Mario 64 if Nintendo listened to opinions like this. And sometimes updating a classic franchise goes horribly wrong- believe me, I'm a Silent Hill fan, I know all about that. But people still have to try.

If they didn't we'd just get an endless cycle of the same thing over and over again, with slight variations in story and gameplay. Not only would customers get bored with this eventually, the developers themselves would get tired of making them. That's something a lot of people often seem to forget, just because you want something doesn't mean developers have to make it.

Hell, in at least two of these examples you're making comparisons with games that came out well over a decade ago. I would hope a modern incarnation of a franchise wouldn't play much like something that came out when PCs were still using floppy drives.

There's only one real criticism you can lay at the feet of all of those games you listed: they're all terrible. And they're terribly because they're *bad games*, not because

*(Some people are probably going to take issue with a few of these, and while it's true that OoT and Metroid Prime held onto a lot of gameplay structures from their 2D predecessors, there were enough changes made that the experience of playing them still felt very different)

You wrote some good examples of games that changed in comparison to the older games of their series and weren't bad.
The thing is,all of the games you wrote where the first that were 3D in their respective series.
Unavoidably going from 2D to 3D meant change,and because the 3rd dimension of depth added realism it brought something we had never found on games before: suspension of disbelief and immersion. So mostly,for the games the change of a game going 3d from being 2d was considered evolution and improvement.

The games I wrote down on my list though weren't changed because of huge technological improvement. Their older installments were already 3D,and there wasn't like a big technological advancement that they made use of and made them different.
What made the games I wrote about different was that the developers didn't cared about the crowd who played the prior games of the series,but tried to capture new audiences by adopting gameplay features of other games that broke the GAMEPLAY FORMULA of the respective series.


Even though OoT has changed a lot from Alttp,there is still the same Zelda formula in both games that is recognizable to the fans,so there are some 'core features' that shape up what someone expects from a Zelda game to be or to do.
You still go through dungeons,open doors with keys that you find by exploring,cut the grass to find rupees etc. There are still things working as you would expect them to.
The same goes for Metroid Prime and Super Metroid too. Sure its graphics are different,and there are new things added like the scanning device that tells you about enemies. But on its core Metroid Prime still plays how you would expect a Metroid game to play. It still have large areas that you can go back and forth,still has secret places with things to unlock,still you open doors by shooting them with various kinds of beams,still you save in a special save room etc.

You see,the difference in games like those you mentioned is that while a lot of things changed,the basic mechanics that shape up the gameplay experience one gets from a game are still there.
Goldeneye is the exception,as not only Bond games,but generally the vast majority of movie licensed games are awful,and it just happened to be the only game ever that was based on a movie license and won 'GOTY' awards.

When it comes to games like those I wrote on my previous post though,what happened was rather different. There wasn't technology improvements that resulted perhaps in adding or evolving some of the pre-existing features of these games,like what's the case for the majority of the games you noted. Instead for the games I wrote what happened was that the developers decided that there is no "gameplay formula" behind them that they should stick to or improve,and instead moved forward on to copying features of other games (like Halo and Call of Duty) thinking that this way they would capture Halo and Call of Duty fans and failing to do so,and making the games loose their own originality and character,which made the fans of these series disappointed. I'm not saying that Call of Duty is bad here - what I am saying is that if I want to play COD,then I'll play COD,not another series that decided to imitate COD. But if I'm told to buy a game of a certain series because it has a specific name on its title,then that game that carries this name should better have the standards and features associated with that name.

Because games are experiences.The reason we like them is because we like the experience they give to us,how we feel when we play them.So if I say that I like Prey,it's because I liked the experience I got when I played it. I liked being hunted by evil aliens that see me as food and getting away by opening portals and moving through them,solving puzzles,and using supernatural spiritual powers to beat my enemies. That's what Prey was,and what it's experience was.Perhaps not everyone might like it,but that was what Prey was all about. Now if Prey 2 has no portals,and no puzzles,and no supernatural powers,and instead its parkour walking from point A to point B,then it's not Prey any more. It might be a good game,but it doesn't have what made Prey be Prey,it is a completely different experience that might be good or not,that for some reason shares a name with another game that played differently.

And you know what ? There would be absolutely no problem if the creators were honest and were just saying "These games are not part of the main series but spin-offs and parodies",because that's what they really are.
Instead it's like you have this action movie,300,and instead of the producers making a sequel to that movie like the actual true sequel "300: Rise of an Empire",they released "Meet the Spartans" as the true sequel to the original movie!
300 is though a 'serious' action movie,but Meet the Spartans is a satiric comedy. Sure both movies have Spartans,but if Warner was making 'Meet the Spartans' and marketed it as a "sequel to 300",and you would expect everyone who liked 300 to just give up the franchise and hate on Warner. Yet Warner is clever enough (unlike many game developers) to not do such foolish things. Some game developers have the bad tendency though to make products that are on a different genre,feel different,and play different,and name them parts of something completely different.

And all that because of the same wrong thinking "We will rip off another game and stick a random pre-used name to it because A we can't have the same name as the game we rip off,and B some fools might buy our game judging by its name,even if it's completely different than what this name is associated with".
And there you have it: The market is full of COD clones because 90% of other FPS series that could have some originality and do their own thing decided to copy COD,and the result is people who played COD keep playing COD because it's the one they already know and got familiar with,and those who for some reason don't like COD stick to playing decade old games or give up the FPS genre entirely and become RPG fans.
What copycats fail miserably to see though is that by copying COD,they are essentially marketing COD and make it stronger.Because people value originality and generally the opinion for an original thing is better than that for an imitation.

 

[I.Muir]

Who has tried to make Anita Sarkeesian's videos disappear? I mostly see people arguing against her with, like, logic and arguments.

It depends on where do you search, there are places where people really goes batshit against Anita.... Thats what i been told at least, ive never seen her being insulted in the internet sites i frequent (and that includes IGN). But i suppose she's insulted in places like Youtube, or the comment section of her own videos, maybe in Steam and perhaps in gaming sites like Yahoo! games (LOL), and of course 4chan, Reddit, NeoGaf... Ive also seen people in this site that think shes evil and she does her stuff totally on purpose, but nothing too heated.

Even 4chan is sick about talking about her and feminism non stop. Of course they still think she is a scam artist and a scab who screwed over the very people that support her and outright lied about her past to hit that niche.

As for general entitlement, well artistic integrity is fine and it is the right of the studio to do what they please in regards to the story or game play. However that ends when they complain to their fans that not enough copies were bought so they won't make it anymore. They might end up alienating fans with massive sweeping changes, overblown advertising budgeting aside, only to turn around and accuse them of not being loyal enough or that interest in the series must have died.

As for constant nickle and dimeing treatment along with shitty drm, well I can only complain and tighten my grip on my wallet and hope enough people do the same.

 

[Doug]

Dear Jim,

You're mention of Mass Effect 3 again made me think of my time watching you on the Escapist, and how much you've actually changed. When I first saw you, your show seemed, I'll be honest, crap. However, you managed to improve your show's quality by leagues, and when you actually turned around and did a video saying you where wrong about Mass Effect 3 and the uproar around it, I knew you where a person who's opinions should be listened too. You where one of the few in the gaming media who didn't just blanket say 'you guys are spoiled and entitled, just enjoy the game and ignore the ending', and the fact that so few gaming media people noticed the difference between the people who genuinely hated the ending but weren't overly obsessed with it, and the 'retake mass effect' people is still a sore spot to me today.

You're honest criticism and frank opinions, always for the customer's benefits (even if it requires calling out the gaming community for its bullshit) is frequently a refreshing breath of air and you've become more important (to me, at least) a reason for coming to the Escapist than Yahtzee's reviews (I still enjoy Yahtzee, but I enjoy your stuff more now).

All I can say is, well done sir!

edit:

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.

The thing about Mass Effect 3's ending was that there were actually two very distinct groups of complainers:
One disliked the ending because it was in their view too short and not detailed enough. After over a hundred hours of game, they wished and expected for something akin to FF6's ending.
The second group despised the ending because they wanted a triumphalist conclusion [http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2012/03/16] to their power fantasy.
One group was providing legitimate criticism, the other one was indeed a bunch of entitled manchildren pissed because their collective masturbatory power-fantasy about being an invincible Space Marine was pretty much shattered when Harbinger crippled Shepard at the end, and this group was waaaaaaay more noisy than the rest, to the point were an outside observer could be forgiven if she concluded that the second group was the only one to exist.

Thankfully, the extended cut gave a more satisfactory conclusion to the first group while giving a resounding Fuck You Very Much to the second group in the form of the fourth ending. This affair ended miraculously well because Bioware managed to address the thoughtful complains without caving to the whims of the vociferous entitled group and pulling an I Am Legend.

I would disagree alittle with this - there where 3 groups in my opinion; the two you mentioned and a third who, whilst not needing a happy ending, didn't like the ending (even post-extended cut) because it was rushed out of no-where, didn't make alot of sense, ignored some of the established in-game cannon, and as better thinkers than me put it, broke the narrative flow.

I do think though, if they'd release Mass Effect 3 with the extended cut, most people would have been happy with that and they wouldn't have had the huge hate they got for it.

 

[IrisNetwork]

Basically, everyone is entitled to their right of free speech to express their opinions but no one has the right to force said opinion on another nor are they entitled to be immune from being disagreed with.

The First Amendment.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

And it's not the no true scotsman fallacy. I am not dismissing angry trolls, I'm just only referring to the response videos and articles that critique her work and disregarding forum posters. If there are angry people openly being misogynistic, and not doing it on a forum or comments section, then I haven't seen it.

Why does it not count if it's in a forum or comments section? That's why you're using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy - you're dismissing things that actually happen, because they don't meet your arbitrary standards.

Forums and comments sections are a big part of the problem. Why are you dismissing them as irrelevant? I mean, the whole internet is essentially a big forum/comments section these days. What are YouTube responses other than video forums?

And you just made up this exclusion, when nobody else was making such a distinction. It seems the only reason you make a distinction is to argue that anybody who attacks Sarkeesian isn't actually relevant to the issue - therefore "No True Scotsman" - just like how a Priest who would molest a child isn't a Real Priest, therefore it does not reflect badly on the church.

You're simply making loopholes to excuse bad behaviour.

 

[Erttheking]

Right.. Anita is the only one whos allowed to post her opinions as fact and shut down any discussion by simply not allowing it and never ever answering her critics who bring up valid points...

Once again the Jesus Anita syndrome at work. Shes allowed to do what other people are being told off for on jimquisition as if she was an untouchable defender of justice when in truth she causes more damage for her cause then she does good.

The problem with the whole mess is that people can't just disagree with her. I disagree with her on a lot of points. But people, this website included, can't just disagree with her and stop there. They have to attack everything about her, the fact that she's wearing make up, the fact that years ago she said something that means we don't have to take anything she says seriously. Jim doesn't think that Anita is Jesus, I don't think that she's Jesus, but people are reacting to her so violently and viciously that people feel obligated to call out the abuse when they see it. Go ahead and disagree with her points, just argue with a logical and level head and attack her points, not her.

Bullshit. Tons of people have posted very reasoned criticism of her without resorting to attacking her personally.

I did not mean to imply that people didn't do that, the problem is that so many people do do that that their criticism tends to get drowned out by the people screaming about how she isn't a real gamer.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

That's a fair statement to make. Except I'm not sure when Anita ever called Samus a damsel. Unless it was Metroid Other M, in which case it was probably justified.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

That's a fair statement to make. Except I'm not sure when Anita ever called Samus a damsel. Unless it was Metroid Other M, in which case it was probably justified.

No. Samus acted as a soldier would, as a dormer soldier, and complied with the idea that Ridley destroyed her homeworld, and killed her family.

She became a bounty hunter, freelance, the people there, regardless of former association with the Galactic Federation, had every reason to distrust her, so requiring her to follow orders or turn on her would be entirely necessity.

I am here to help you, could be the words of an employer since she is is now freelance.

Other M is not sexist, it follows military standard. You are freelance? You follow orders.

I don't care if it follows military procedure, what I care about is that it completely defiled the character of Samus Aran. Her whining about the baby metroid doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you remember that she willingly handed it over to the Federation to be experimented on. Yeah it thought she was its mother and it did save her life, but while she didn't want to kill it, she clearly didn't think of it as her child. Also following orders to the point of utter absurdity is not something I think of when I think of Samus Aran. She can't turn on any of her suit functions unless Adam gives her the thumbs up because he doesn't want to cause unneeded damage? Ok, not the worst explanation, except it kinda falls apart when Samus has to run through an area that causes her damage because Adam didn't give her the thumbs up for the Varia Suit, which has no function beyond that of a hazard shield and better armor depending on the game. That is beyond simply following orders, this is Adam being an incompetent commander and Samus being blind in her devotion to him. Heck, Fusion had her taking orders from Adam when he was a computer after the events of Other M and while she did follow his orders, she went against them when she had to and outright told him to piss off when he told her to leave the parasites of the game for the Federation to experiment on. So really, her being so subservient to him is kinda OOC.

I would possibly buy Samus locking up at Ridley if this was the first chronological game in the Metroid series, but it isn't, its the next to last. Which means that when Samus meets Ridley in Other M, she has fought him, beaten him and KILLED him twice by this point, five if you count the Prime Trilogy. As such, I don't see how its realistic at all that she would lock up on seeing him when she didn't have any trouble fighting him anytime before this, she didn't have any trouble fighting him in Metroid Fusion, and really there is no precedent for this in the Metroid universe. With the possible exception of the Metroid manga, and even then she gets over her fear of Ridley by the end of it. Yeah, her fear of Ridley might be a realistic take on PTSD but it was a realistic take that didn't fit in with established canon and the writing was just kinda lousy overall.

But the main problem with Metroid Other M is this. The writing is just kinda shit overall. And yes it is sexist, it is very sexist because it took one of the most iconic female characters of gaming and turned her into a spineless wimp. I'm all for a game where an established hero has moments of weakness, but I'd prefer if it didn't happen to a well known, liked, and established character who doesn't act anything like that, and if you need to, I'd rather her be a badass with moments of weakness and not a wimp with moments of badass.