Jimquisition: Joy Begets Anger
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Indeed. I really don't understand why people feel the need to attack other people for liking a game they dislike.Jimothy Sterling said:
I have no issue discussing why I do or do not like a game, but why all the pointless anger?
Anyway, once again, I thank the gods for you, Jim Sterling. Excellent video.
I think however that the real problem is simply that gamers don't trust reviewers anymore. Reviewers in the past just have damaged the trust of gamers everywhere so damn much that gamers ignore the opinion of the reviewer and think that everything they do is crap.
I guess its due to the following reasons:
1: They have to rely on game publishers to get products. This makes people think that reviewers are bribed to give good scores.
2: They don't play every game (so not doing what they want people to believe they do). How can someone trust them?
3: The internet has given more notoriety to smaller reviewer groups, who work independently and make clear that they choose what they review, thus aspiring confidence to there audience and making them more sceptical towards professional reviewers
But I guess this episode just shows how far that hatred has gone.
I guess its due to the following reasons:
1: They have to rely on game publishers to get products. This makes people think that reviewers are bribed to give good scores.
2: They don't play every game (so not doing what they want people to believe they do). How can someone trust them?
3: The internet has given more notoriety to smaller reviewer groups, who work independently and make clear that they choose what they review, thus aspiring confidence to there audience and making them more sceptical towards professional reviewers
But I guess this episode just shows how far that hatred has gone.
When I'm looking up reviews to decide if I want to buy a game, It's more useful to me to have reviewers that share my tastes. That doesn't mean all reviewers have to share my opinions on a game, nor should they. It just means I will never look to Greg Tito as a source for the quality of a game. He clearly does not share my idea of fun, his rankings and opinions differ wildly from mine, so I merely won't take his review (most of the time I won't even read em actually) of a game into account.
People can call that "holding it against him" or whatever, but I don't think I should be obligated to respect his opinion/review of a game, since his tastes are obviously not mine.
People can call that "holding it against him" or whatever, but I don't think I should be obligated to respect his opinion/review of a game, since his tastes are obviously not mine.
Yeah, I actually even have reviewers that I don't like that I follow purely because their choices are consistently off. "Yeah, get this one" translates pretty well into me not wanting to have it.Darkmantle said:
As long as the reviewer is consistent and you can relate their reviews to your own choices, then they are useful. Then you get people like Jim or Ben who are genuinely entertaining as well and that's the best of all worlds.
Hah, fair enough, my partner at the time was Irish, she was turned off enough by the accent in the trailers and preview videos of the Saboteur to not want to go anywhere near the game. So it definitely turned off some.chiefohara said:
This episode actually made me feel a bit better. When people attack me for saying I loved Final Fantasy 13 or demand that I provide them with justification for having the audacity to like something they and many others didn't, it's only because they were jealous of me
Just with less enemies at a time. Yeah, fair enough. It is a pretty shit example next to Bayonetta and Ninja Gaiden. As I said though, I haven't played the game, so if DMC is really in the latter category, that's unfortunate. Did they simplify mechanics or combat or something?Cybylt said:
To me, the anger in the 'gaming community' (if such a term holds water) is far from unique. For other ridiculous examples of rage, I need look no further than any news website that allows user comments. A good example is my home state's NJ.com, where nearly every article gets followed by vicious political diatribe, name-calling, racial slurs, threats of violence, and so on. It's downright barbaric.Banzaiman said:
Even within my relatively passive hobby of discussing modern classical music on internet groups, there's often outbursts where a person's behavior goes from zero to frothing in an instant.
The only way I can explain it to myself is that it's human 'blowback' from the changes to social life wrought by technological developments that grow and change degrees of magnitude faster than the human psyche.
In other words, I feel like it's symptomatic of a culture of people who are increasingly out-of-touch with their own individual beings. Rather than looking inward to address questions of personal well-being, the whole focus of their life is on some context of everybody else falling into line in some way. The problem with this is obviously that people never fall into line for long, and the resultant frustrated idealism is a quick route to anger at one's own impotence. I've often seen the term 'extrovert ideal' bandied about. Essentially, technology and social-networking has brought us to a point where even the most introverted sorts are being dragged along and bullied by this force. What results is a culture of mutant extroverts (i.e. people who righteously suck at dealing with others civilly but simultaneously cannot pull themselves away for long enough to reflect on how they're behaving). At the same time this rampant social interdependency is growing, all sorts of market forces and high-capitalist ethos and propaganda are still working their own divide-and-conquer magic on everybody, spreading obsolete Baby Boomer ideals about how people need to 'get theirs' and compete towards 'being number one!'. The combination of these forces is a recipe for widespread and atomized sociopathy that, over time, may land us all in a totalitarianism that reaches from the micro- to the macro-scale of social reality.
People are just mad cause they have no happiness in their lives and you're ballin' it up with happiness bro. Keep it up, people getting angry when you make a statement is a win in my books. I'd rather an honest person than a shill.
I feel like a lot of it really is just people not being mad at the reviewer, but wanting to give their two cents of what they think about a game. And if they don't like the game, it can sometimes flow into their two cents about the game, and then it displaces on a person who likes it as well. It's that person who liked the game that brought up the game they did not like, so it is their fault that the rage flows through(I don't actually believe this, I just see that as an underlining feeling that some of these people have, learn some damn self control).
Whenever one person gives their opinion, another person wants to add to the discussion, and there is nothing wrong with that in general. In fact, there is no reason why you even have to act pleasantly towards a game you don't like, so if you need to rage, rage against the game itself, however, after the opinions get out there the mud slinging begins because they realize neither will budge on their actual opinion and simply sit their like brick wall, so the only follow up they can take is "quick, insult their sexuality!"
At the end of the day, the fact that it happens is little surprising, and the reason why there is so much more toxicity with these discussions now because there are so many games that people are just split on. While we know the industry is the one fucking us over by making the vast amount of clones of games we find dull, we assume the industry is much more stuck in its way than one fan. The industry is a giant entity, soulless and uncaring of the actual cares of fans, the fans however are human beings, in which case you can relate to them, and also cut them down.
It's not right, but it still has logical steps behind it.
Whenever one person gives their opinion, another person wants to add to the discussion, and there is nothing wrong with that in general. In fact, there is no reason why you even have to act pleasantly towards a game you don't like, so if you need to rage, rage against the game itself, however, after the opinions get out there the mud slinging begins because they realize neither will budge on their actual opinion and simply sit their like brick wall, so the only follow up they can take is "quick, insult their sexuality!"
At the end of the day, the fact that it happens is little surprising, and the reason why there is so much more toxicity with these discussions now because there are so many games that people are just split on. While we know the industry is the one fucking us over by making the vast amount of clones of games we find dull, we assume the industry is much more stuck in its way than one fan. The industry is a giant entity, soulless and uncaring of the actual cares of fans, the fans however are human beings, in which case you can relate to them, and also cut them down.
It's not right, but it still has logical steps behind it.
Both.MeChaNiZ3D said:
DMC1 still sets the standard for enemies since;
1 - All enemies are actually on the offensive a lot.
2 - All enemies have a wide variety of moves. The basic enemy has crowd control, front and back grapples, a charge, and three or four standard attacks for crap sake, and that has yet to be seen again.
3 - They'll fight dirty, even in 3 and 4 the enemy who will attack you while you're focused on another are few and far between. Ninja Gaiden lies somewhere in between with this, enemies will take turns but they're still not just sitting around watching you kill their buddy.
And 3 and 4 downgraded enemies from there but made up for it with the Styles and the incredibly high skill ceilings.
But DmC toned down both enemy threat and severely lowered the skill ceiling while not making the bar of entry a whole lot different when you consider the easy modes of previous games. So, issues with it include...
1 - Enemies drop aggro once they're off camera
2 - Styles gone, replaced with Heavenly Sword style strong but slow or quick but weak Demon and Angel trigger hold system. Fans of Royalguard and Trickster were especially let down by this as these two styles offered incredibly different ways to play.
3 - The style meter is effectively rendered useless. In previous games it went up based on how long you can chain combos and repeat attacks had diminishing returns on score unless you put enough attacks between uses. In DmC is it purely damage based, meaning attaining and keeping SSS rank is just three heavy attacks away.
4 - They removed the lock on for some reason and the auto-aim can get a bit weird at times. This also changed Stinger from R1+Forward Triangle to doubletap forward triangle and though I guess it's more down to preference but it made a bread and butter combo starter kind of awkward to pull off.
5 - Removed choice. When most people think choice they think dialog but in this case I mean freedom of play, in old titles some weapons had an elemental bonus damage but they were never necessary, allowing for the player a myriad of options. In DmC you have color coded enemies who can only be damaged while in Angel or Demon mode. Combine that with the removal of styles and you go from tons of possible ways of dealing with any encounter versus either the sole difference between weapon choice, or you're railroaded onto a singular weapon, the angel mode scythe or the demon mode axe.
They've done a good job of making it LOOK like the mid-level play of an older title (with sword master style) but there's a huge gap in execution and options.
In an odd twist, they wound up kind of making the new Dante something that may appeal more to japan by giving him those few angsty back story cutscenes and "I'm gonna be human's protector," ending instead of the straight up silly and totally aware of it Dante of 3 and 4.
Onto the good, the art style of the limbo levels is pretty nice, and it can look like you're doing pretty complex combos even though you're hitting three buttons one at a time. And... uhhh... pffff... some of those grunts and shouts Dante does are pretty funny, but probably not in the way they intended. They're these super flat, "Aaaaaaaaa.." it's so out of place in the sound effects that I can't help but chuckle.
I also give them some points for bringing back "Flock off, feather face!" as a quip.
So, combine that with the situation of the press and dev team being assholes by stating and re-stating the only problem people have was the hair... and you have a pretty justly frustrated fan base. Really, the game is competent as a western hack and slash but many journalists, Jim included were hailing it as some kind of peak of the medium that was unjustly struck down by shallow fans when it just isn't, as if they were doing it simply to spite the backlash.
Or maybe they just got too involved in the initial defense against the more shallow backlash that they found themselves in a situation where they couldn't just say "Eh it was alright," because that'd make them look bad. There was even an article berating fans of the series for the game failing to meet sales estimates.
Order in which I hate people
People who Don't like what I like = People who like what I Don't like > People who like what I like
No one can destroy something you love more that someone who loves it too.
People who Don't like what I like = People who like what I Don't like > People who like what I like
No one can destroy something you love more that someone who loves it too.
Your misled delusions in the goodness of the world were weakness.Mikeyfell said:
Mass effect 3 freed you from the shackles of your false optimism, you should be thankful.
"Tangibility" is a word that means things. Namely that it's something you can touch. Has your physical heart's temperature or color significantly changed accordingly?Mikeyfell said:
Believe me the pain I feel because of Mass Effect 3 is quite realLightknight said:
The headaches I get when I try to understand what thought the Crucible was a good idea
The heartache I get when I think about what they did to characters I loved like Jack or Garrus or Tali or any of them really.
The pulsating soreness in the back of my neck when ever I press the A button and have a 1 in 5 chance of Shepard doing the thing I was trying to do.
The rage swelling up behind up my eyeballs growing stronger with every plot point that directly contradicts common sense or something that happened in a precious game.
It's all quite tangible
Well said.
I always make a point of saying to others, if that's what you like, dive in and enjoy it, even if I disagree and don't want to join you. Its easy to get mired in bad feelings, but you've got to remember that games are a hobby that should bring all who game excitement, challenge, fun etc. I guess some websites aren't created equally if Gamespot gets comments like that.
I dislike the DW games (for reasons of their ease to develop and sell constantly, than attempt much of anything new at Koei Tecmo), but I know Jimbob and others love them and that's okay. Variety is the spice of life.
Perhaps some sites and games mags should write a disclaimer noting that 'reviews are still individual opinions from staff'. I'm growing to dislike the GOTY thing because it creates such divides amongst gamers who can't see that from the trees. Why do we have to choose a best list at all. Don't choose winners and losers, just discuss the best and the worst games you played, clearly stating your reasons why.
I always make a point of saying to others, if that's what you like, dive in and enjoy it, even if I disagree and don't want to join you. Its easy to get mired in bad feelings, but you've got to remember that games are a hobby that should bring all who game excitement, challenge, fun etc. I guess some websites aren't created equally if Gamespot gets comments like that.
I dislike the DW games (for reasons of their ease to develop and sell constantly, than attempt much of anything new at Koei Tecmo), but I know Jimbob and others love them and that's okay. Variety is the spice of life.
Perhaps some sites and games mags should write a disclaimer noting that 'reviews are still individual opinions from staff'. I'm growing to dislike the GOTY thing because it creates such divides amongst gamers who can't see that from the trees. Why do we have to choose a best list at all. Don't choose winners and losers, just discuss the best and the worst games you played, clearly stating your reasons why.
Another huge reason for the mistrust is sometimes reviewers have reviewed a game without completing it, or on some infamous occasions WITHOUT EVEN PLAYING IT!hydrolythe said:
See, there's no way to really verify that a reviewer really played a game, not like a film reviewer seeing a movie (people obviously saw them at the screening). Some game reviewers even proudly state they DIDN'T finish a game (this almost never happens for film reviewers). Plus reviewers are usually so strapped for time that they end up rushing through just the main plot in a game that has perhaps dozens of hours of optional content or multiplayer content that reviewers don't play. Reviewers usually play on the lower difficulties too, which is rarely what most hardcore gamers are going to use. The way reviewers play through games is pretty much the worst possible way of getting enjoyment out of a game, so how can you trust them to ever properly represent the entire experience in their review?