Jimquisition: Joy Begets Anger

[nightazday]

I like to think critics and reviewers are part of the reason for this "culture of negativity." They tend to be the first ones to insult series as well as insult the people who like the series, even going as far as painting them as "the reason why the [blank] industry sucks the way it does. Like naturally COD is popular because people like COD games and buy them so usually reviewers imply or outright say that the COD fans are to blame for the domination COD has on the market and all the COD clones therein. Ergo, all COD fans are attacked. Thus creating a culture in which people want to screw over content they do not like by attacking what they believe is the source the people who like the things you don't like (thus buy it, generate revenue, makes it successful, etc.). People do not like you liking DMC because "it's not supposed to be liked" and your praised helped make what they don't like successful, so you are the enemy.

Inversely it's also a "put your money where your mouth is" type of deal. With all the bile and criticism critics tend to put out on games people actually do like and how they belittle the people who like them, naturally those people expect a title that completely blows the games they insulted out of the water. Something that is so good it justifies their previous negative reviews. It can't just be "good" or "fun" because those were the types of games, in their opinion, the reviewer shot down in the past, it has to be "completely perfect" or the critic paints a target and allows other people to "criticize" and "give their opinions" on the stuff they like.

 

[karma9308]

A jimquisition on my bday, what more could anyone ask for?

I know I have done this on occasion. I remember getting upset with some critics during the Mass Effect ending debacle. I never sent like hate mail or actually do anything, but I would get all worked up. I really got upset though when they started calling people who didn't like the ending entitled shits and whatnot. Though I would argue it did affect me, seeing as how it kinda kickstarted the depressive episode I was in.

But when I do get upset at people, especially for something stupid like this, I think its more a sign to me that I'm spending too much time on the internet and need to log off for a bit. The constant negativity and anger towards everything really can get to you after a while.

 

[Blade_125]

I guess every so often I will disagree with what Jim says (well on a few points at least).

While I could care less what subjective score a reviewer gives a game, I do want to know everything about it. I love Dragon age 2, and have beaten it 6-7 times (with another play through coming when I finish my latest play through of DA:O), yet I will admit there were plenty of flaws in it. If a review gives a game a perfect scores and does not acknowledge the faults then they are the ones doing the industry and gamers a disservice. They are paid to give a review of the game play, not tell us what their favorite games are (well not only that at least).

Also I disagree on it being the industries fault for everything being call of honour 2054. Every year 3-4 of the same damn game are released and they are always the top sellers. I don't have an issue with people liking these games. I do have an issue with people paying $60 for the same game with a different map. What company wouldn't continue to do this if it prints money. What company wouldn't see if they could tap into that market. Smart ones will realize their niche will not always fit in the shooter market, but company heads are not usually games or developers.

but other than that someone's liking for disliking of a game doesn't impact me in the slightest, and there is no reason to be angry over a subjective preference.

 

[Blade_125]

Yep thats money and time im never getting back. Again I get that other people liked it, but I'm pissed off that these reviewers just gave the game such positive scores and mentioned only one or two of its shortcomings (or failed to see what other people wouldnt like) and even passed off these weaknesses as just meh.

I'm not trying to pick on you here but this is pretty much a widespread issue. Why do people believe that they are somehow owed a good experience? I get that games are expensive but the reaction of anger can only come from a belief that you somehow deserve to not be exposed to something you dislike. You had an experience, you did not like it, you moved on. Imagine going through life being angry at every meal you eat that you don't enjoy, every book you don't like, etc. And worse, being angry at the people who do like them. That is what is basically happening here.

Pretty much hit the nail on the head in regards to what I was going to say. To elaborate further:

Why do so many people feel so personally slighted and hurt when they play a bad video game? The best way to address playing something bad is to acknowledge "Well, I didn't like that very much," take some knowledge about how not to design video games away from it, laugh it off, and move on. I love video games. They are a huge, important part of my life, to the point that I harbor some aspirations about going into game design myself. However, I do not let a bad experience that I have playing a video game turn me into a frothing ball of hatred.

Earlier this year, I was one of the poor saps who pre-ordered Aliens: Colonial Marines. Let me say that again: I PRE-ORDERED Aliens: Colonial Marines. That game was a steaming pile of horseshit, and I ended up forcing myself to play through it as a learning experience, but did I let that turn me into a hate tornado? No. I took it as a learning experience to learn more about how not to design a video game, laughed at myself for being an idiot, resolved not to pre-order games on Steam ever again, and moved on. In 2012, Paper Mario: Sticker Star was one of the biggest disappointments of a game that I've ever played, but it was a wonderful learning experience as well. I was able to pinpoint exactly what I didn't like about it from a design standpoint and jotted down my thoughts on it, and I came away having gained something positive from the experience.

My point is, you will inevitably play a bad game, or a game you didn't like. Not all games are good, but you can make each and every game, or any piece of media for that matter, into a positive experience if you just take away something good from it. Even if you will never actually make a video game in your life, you can learn about what you like and dislike and hopefully make a better purchasing decision next time. To link this all the way back to Jim's thesis, not getting so seethingly angry about not liking a video game will hopefully make you less inclined to respond with anger if someone else likes it. Entertainment is supposed to bring joy into our lives, not make us all unhappy wrecks.

Probably for the same reason someone buys anything that doesn't work as advertised. Seething angry is stupid, but if I buy something that doesn't work I take it back, and if they won't then I don't shop there again.

 

[Callate]

I'd be lying if I said I didn't, to some degree, "get" the rage.

Maybe not on an individual private consumer level. But on a critical level? Especially with the drive to reduce review scores to a scale-of-ten number?

I get it when people are frustrated when a forgettable game with a contrived story but flashy production values gets 9s and 10s, or even when some indie darling gets the same treatment despite being buggy as all-get-out, having the depth of a Necco wafer, and/or presentation that would shame the NES.

I get it because it seems like a big old vote for "more of the same"- a vote in an election which I do have a stake in, but don't really get to vote in myself. Thousands of people may buy a game because someone listed on Metacritic gave it an 8, 9, or 10; comparatively, my indifference or derision isn't going to make a scratch. And then we are going to get more of the same, and likely as not, it's going to be more of the same on the broad strokes while missing the intricacies or polish that made the "leader" as successful as it was.

At that point, it's hard to see it being about others' joy so much as your own joy slipping out of reach because there's only so much development money to go around.

Jim's right, of course, that the "follow the leader" tendencies are largely an industry problem. But it doesn't occur in a vacuum. And yeah, this ties in to older "Jimquisitions" like "Hate out of 10" and "Metacritic is Not the Problem". We need an extended (preferably polite!) conversation about games that doesn't reduce things to numbers, where consumers feel they can be heard, and where a game review isn't the end of that conversation. I just don't know how to bring such a thing about.

 

[CitySquirrel]

snip

He was the one who got hung up on the food thing. I simply pointed out that it would be silly to go through life enraged at everything you did not enjoy. Also, I have trouble notion of an objective review. How do you know what is taste and what is structural? I hate opera. This is because I hate that style of singing. This is structural for OPERA, but it is still based on a matter of taste. In a game, anything not at the level of coding and programming is a matter of taste.


Maybe one of the issues is that there is no distinction between game reviewer and game critic.

 

[JarinArenos]

Jim, as always I thank god for you, but for once, I cannot thank god for this video. I think I agree with where you're coming from, in that getting angry at someone else's enjoyment is wrong, but the extrapolations take it too far. Reviews will always be inseparable from the reviewer, but if they are to be criticism, they must be something different than an impressions piece or a Let's Play.

Let's look at the infamous Dragon Age 2 review that you mention. No, people should not be getting angry that he enjoyed the game. The fact that he enjoyed it is a legitimate part of the review. But there is a very large step from saying you enjoyed a game, and singing its praises to high heaven and not even looking at potential flaws. That is not reviewing. That is advertising.

Now hold on. I am not in any way making accusations of payoffs or dishonesty here. I believe that the DA2 article was honest. I advertise my favorite games on a regular basis. But if I am trying to review something for someone, I make sure I pay attention to its flaws, or places that I liked that many people might not (I love the hell out of FFXII, for instance, but I can still see its issues). Playing a game for enjoyment is good. It is what they are for. But when you do this for your job, while enjoyment is a perfectly fine side-effect, it is no longer the entire point.

 

[Dragonbums]

You say you want to love all games, but do you really?

Do you really want to even imagine a world in which Ride to Hell: Retribution was a title which brought you unadulterated joy and cheer?

I don't know, some people enjoy laughing at how broken a game is. I suppose that's not enjoyment of the game itself though.

But look at how much damn fun those people playing 'Amazing Frog?' are having not only with the game, but how broken the game is?

 

[PortalThinker113]

I'm not trying to pick on you here but this is pretty much a widespread issue. Why do people believe that they are somehow owed a good experience? I get that games are expensive but the reaction of anger can only come from a belief that you somehow deserve to not be exposed to something you dislike. You had an experience, you did not like it, you moved on. Imagine going through life being angry at every meal you eat that you don't enjoy, every book you don't like, etc. And worse, being angry at the people who do like them. That is what is basically happening here.

Pretty much hit the nail on the head in regards to what I was going to say. To elaborate further:

Why do so many people feel so personally slighted and hurt when they play a bad video game? The best way to address playing something bad is to acknowledge "Well, I didn't like that very much," take some knowledge about how not to design video games away from it, laugh it off, and move on. I love video games. They are a huge, important part of my life, to the point that I harbor some aspirations about going into game design myself. However, I do not let a bad experience that I have playing a video game turn me into a frothing ball of hatred.

Earlier this year, I was one of the poor saps who pre-ordered Aliens: Colonial Marines. Let me say that again: I PRE-ORDERED Aliens: Colonial Marines. That game was a steaming pile of horseshit, and I ended up forcing myself to play through it as a learning experience, but did I let that turn me into a hate tornado? No. I took it as a learning experience to learn more about how not to design a video game, laughed at myself for being an idiot, resolved not to pre-order games on Steam ever again, and moved on. In 2012, Paper Mario: Sticker Star was one of the biggest disappointments of a game that I've ever played, but it was a wonderful learning experience as well. I was able to pinpoint exactly what I didn't like about it from a design standpoint and jotted down my thoughts on it, and I came away having gained something positive from the experience.

My point is, you will inevitably play a bad game, or a game you didn't like. Not all games are good, but you can make each and every game, or any piece of media for that matter, into a positive experience if you just take away something good from it. Even if you will never actually make a video game in your life, you can learn about what you like and dislike and hopefully make a better purchasing decision next time. To link this all the way back to Jim's thesis, not getting so seethingly angry about not liking a video game will hopefully make you less inclined to respond with anger if someone else likes it. Entertainment is supposed to bring joy into our lives, not make us all unhappy wrecks.

Probably for the same reason someone buys anything that doesn't work as advertised. Seething angry is stupid, but if I buy something that doesn't work I take it back, and if they won't then I don't shop there again.

But that's the point. "Not being good" is not the same thing as "doesn't work." If I buy a game that is bugged so bad that I cannot play it, or I purchase a physical disk and it is broken before I even put it in my console, you can sure as heck bet that I will be angry and wanting my money back. But if I play through a game, start to finish, and don't like it, I have experienced the entire product. I cannot un-play the game after I have finished it, I can't return the experience that I already had. I may not have liked the game, but the game being bad isn't a horrible offense that should get me seethingly angry.

You're right in that I would probably then be less inclined to go back to the same "store," and maybe even advise others to not play the game, but I can still take something positive away from that experience. I will never demand a refund simply because the entertainment I took part in was not to my liking. That was a risk I signed up for when I bought the thing.

 

[Silly Hats]

This is the most refreshing video in a long time. The irrational negativity just wears me out and burns me out. The worst thing about the internet is the need for people to justify their intellect and interests.

 

[Hunter Grant]

I like to think critics and reviewers are part of the reason for this "culture of negativity." They tend to be the first ones to insult series as well as insult the people who like the series, even going as far as painting them as "the reason why the [blank] industry sucks the way it does. Like naturally COD is popular because people like COD games and buy them so usually reviewers imply or outright say that the COD fans are to blame for the domination COD has on the market and all the COD clones therein. Ergo, all COD fans are attacked. Thus creating a culture in which people want to screw over content they do not like by attacking what they believe is the source the people who like the things you don't like (thus buy it, generate revenue, makes it successful, etc.). People do not like you liking DMC because "it's not supposed to be liked" and your praised helped make what they don't like successful, so you are the enemy.

Inversely it's also a "put your money where your mouth is" type of deal. With all the bile and criticism critics tend to put out on games people actually do like and how they belittle the people who like them, naturally those people expect a title that completely blows the games they insulted out of the water. Something that is so good it justifies their previous negative reviews. It can't just be "good" or "fun" because those were the types of games, in their opinion, the reviewer shot down in the past, it has to be "completely perfect" or the critic paints a target and allows other people to "criticize" and "give their opinions" on the stuff they like.

Amen, If I remember correctly Adam Sessler recently did a stream where he played Kingdom Hearts because he hates it and mocks people who like it. So he spent the entire session making jabs and digs at the game and those who like it. This could easily be carried through to a lot of the issues in the gaming community, a lot of it comes directly from the audience imitating the critics. They use smarm, spite and Virol in their writing and then wonder why their comments are filled with the same. Well I learned it from watching you Dad. There are critics I could point out like Jeremy Parish who can crack the odd joke, but keeps the tone of his reviews in a sane place and generally seems to get back the same in return.

 

[Malshien]

As always enjoyed the video, but more importantly I have to say much love Jim for throwing in those Ancestral Trail pics, I loved that series so much as a youngster it's nice to see that someone else remembers it also! Keep up the good work sir!

 

[Ken_J]

But isn't the real Willam Dafoe made of plastic and dreams?

 

[Mike Fang]

I can certainly agree that on the surface, taking offense at someone else enjoying something seems pretty damn stupid, and in many cases, it is pretty damn stupid. However, as Jim pointed out, there is the concern that too many people having low standards and being satisfied with games that most would agree are poor quality, designed based on the responses of focus-tested groups will lead to the industry never developing anything better. I'm confused, though, at how he then turns right around and says "don't blame people for liking it, blame the developers for making games like that." Well...if people keep eating up the lazily made, cheaply produced games that were made just to check off a list of desired features from a focus group...why should developers bother doing otherwise? Why should developers shift money from the easy-to-produce, lowest-common-denominator shooters, god games, RPGs and the like and put it into ones that are innovative, different, take risks and try altering the formulas that have become almost industry standards? Remember that these days, sadly, mainstream game developers' primary goal isn't to provide a quality product to benefit its customers...its to get the consumers' money as fast as they can, however they can.

I'm not saying that throwing petulant tantrums and raging on the internet over positive reviews is a good thing; it's not. However, I think perhaps some of the more mature people who are looking at the big picture, and seeing an industry being steered by lot of people with low standards, do have a right to not be all that pleased.

 

[Chester Rabbit]

Nailed it Jim. How I wish I could simply voice my love for Mass Effect 3 without 14 people chiming in and telling me how the game was bad and failed to meet their expectations and how I am an idiot for actually liking it I really do wish I didn't have to love that game in silence but that?s the reality of the matter.

I won?t lie though I am guilty of doing this from time to time and the main reason behind it is when it involves the implementation of one of the modern pandemics circulating through the gaming industry which leads to anticonsumer policies being where they have no business being. Or the watering down of franchises to broaden their appeal

And witnessing it all actually work!

but then again now that I think about it, my anger has never really been directed at the consumer(okay the Xbone) it almost always been directed at the product and people behind the product. That is of course unless someone provoked me. The only time I have ever gotten into a confrontation over something along the lines of this subject is if I have been attacked and have needed to defend my opinion on the subject, but I seldom ever resort to name calling or try to force my opinion onto someone else. I?ve never called someone an idiot for thinking Kratos is the greatest gaming protagonist that has and ever will be. Or damned a fan of Gears of War for thinking the series is one of the greatest stories to have ever been told in gaming.

Treat thy neighbor as thyself right?

I mean heh, wouldn?t want someone ranting at me trying to shove reasons down my throat for why I shouldn?t like Bioshock Infinite and how I am just a filthy spoiled moronic modern gamer(89) who can?t appreciate the more complex System Shock 2. oh wait that does happen...

 

[Dragonbums]

Can't say I don't know how that feels. Whenever a new Pokemon game come out, there is always that very vocal, and very annoying group of "original fans" that always need to vent and rage about how Pokemon can continue to be a thing after 14 years or how the new Pokemon are always stupid looking and nobody can like the new ones.

Or perhaps for some of the meaner ones, how we can be such sheep for essentially buying the same game with a shit story, when for many Pokemon fans it's hardly about "story"(not saying there aren't those who don't enjoy it or anything)


I had one person give me a bit of shit because I said I loved generation 5 of Pokemon. She had a sneer on her face, like she couldn't even begin to believe what she was hearing. The best part when she asked to look at my sketchbook, she saw a variety of monsters that she thought looked really fucking cool. Didn't want to break it to her that most of those "cool" monsters were actually doodles from generation 5 itself, and the only thing she even knew about Pokemon Black and White was trubbish and Garbodor.

Same thing with CoD. I never understood why that game is consistently blamed for "ruining" gaming. How does a single game ruin the games industry?
Nobody told anyone to make their games CoD clones. If you hated how X game became a CoD clone, than send that angry letter to X games dev. Not CoD's dev studio for being a bunch of unwashed ticks.

 

[r_phix]

Well, this is a complex debate in my point of view.
Thank you very much Jim for this video, that covers all the main points
(I was already typing a comment when you were answering it in the video )

However, there is (and this is mainly covered in the video) one element I think is major. Whether the point of view is Macro or Micro. Sometime, I would like a music album in a Micro level, like "yes, this is an album that has a great atmosphere, that makes me want to dance, or whatever". But in a Macro level, in comparison with other album from the same artist, I would be disappointed ; like "the quality is so not what it has once been".
And I think that this is, not a positive feeling, but still a sign of "love" in a way. This is because I "love" an artist that I want to be able to send a signal like "well... this is ok but be careful". And having everyone judging the album on a "micro" level, like "oh yes, this is a good album actually !" can create a "fear" feeling.

There is an interview of Matthew Herbert when he was "Radio Boy". He said something like "Bjork made me listen to her album, and I told her this is a very bad album ; and then she redid everything before releasing it"; and he added "you have to be a very bad friend if you don't make people aware of their mistake".

(it was about the album "Vespertine" for the curious).

What I try to say is that I am sure the album was already a good one ; no doubt, Bjork is a talented artist. But sometime you don't want people that would listen to this album just once their all life, to say "Wow, what a wonderful album !!!" (the "wow" effect) and just drop the album the second after, and never give a sh** about it anymore ; while you committed so much for the artist yourself, listening to albums again and again and again, grabbing the essence of it ; and knowing, in the bigger context, the macro one, that something is going wrong.

This doesn't justify any "rage" or any "insulting" behavior ; but I think this is important to acknowledge that some people can be "angry" because they "love", not just because they "hate". Because they "care" about an "art" they are afraid of being destroyed. The debate can be about the legitimity of judging other people "point of view" ; and yes, there is kind of a condescending tone in this way of thinking. But I just wanted to point out this possibility too.

 

[Sheo_Dagana]

The new DmC was a really solid title that was a lot of fun to play. It's not like it doesn't have problems, but the series it was spawned from also had a multitude of issues, not the least of which being a protagonist with major personality inconsistencies. The original series was decent, but I'd be hard pressed to put any of them into a top 20 list of best games I've ever played. That said, I was completely taken aback by the outlandish amount of hate leveled at this game. I even had a person in the real world ask me my opinion of the game and then verbally attack me for saying I enjoyed it.

Whatever happened to the phrase "to each their own?" I also enjoyed Mass Effect 3, it's multiplayer component, and didn't care at all about the ending everyone whined about for half a year later. You have every right to like or dislike something, but the instant you start attacking me personally for my tastes in games is when you start making an ass of yourself. No one has the right to tell me what I can and cannot like. If you want to sneer and say something like "well if you want to like a shit game, that's fine with me," even that is better than getting in my face over a reboot that neither one of us has any say in.

 

[Barciad]

I'd like to think it's just a phase some people go through. It's called the 'self-righteous teenage boy syndrome' and it's not a pretty sight. I can talk from bitter experience since I am a past sufferer. Albeit, it was for music and not games. I am not proud of this fact and I am glad that I have grown out of it. Though I will say in my defence that music is a far more communal experience than games.
The thing about games is that if someone likes playing a game that you don't particularly care for, it is hardly going to affect you. Just as Jim Sterling said in his video. With music, it is slightly different. If some individual chose to play out loud something that you dislike, you may be able to go to another room. Or maybe you don't have that luxury; and it is quite possible that this is where the arguments start. TV is similar example to this.

 

[chaos order]

Do you really not understand why people who bought DA2 based on the perfect score, opened the box and out fell a turd would be mad at the reviewer?

As others have pointed out, it is silly to assume that what was in the box was a turd. I loved Dragon Age 2... I did two play-throughs in a fricken row. Are you saying I like crap? Or maybe tastes differ and what tastes like candy to me tastes like turd to you. Because, obviously you cannot have an objective game review. People have tastes. This site shows that they would look like: http://www.objectivegamereviews.com/

On a final note: his wife? I thought Jim was gay.

Admittingly, yes you cannot have an objective game review. When it comes to DA2 however there are objectively BAD things in it. These aren't small things either some of them are big examples of bad game and story design. You can like the characters in DA2, I didn't, but thats subjective and give room for interesting discussions that's fine. You may not mind that your character from origins is almost never mentioned, thats ok. YOu may not mind the changes to the gameplay that made DA2 less tactical, thats just some people liking action more than having to pause and work it out.

When the seemingly permanent choices you make in origins just get ignored? Thats bad. If Alister dies in origins hes just back no explanation no nothing just the developers going well we want this character to live more so.. hes back. When siding with either the templars or mages makes no difference what so ever. Thats also BAD. whats the point of picking sides, i mean this game is supposed to be heavily focussed on the story and the choices you make, but in the end it doesnt matter. Even then, if you could forgive those two things there is one BIG BAD HOLE in the game. the "dungeons" all of them were cut from a larger map with some sections opened and others closed, but in the end they were all the same. You just keep going through the same cave or manor over and over again. Its like playing the first two levels of super mario world and only having minor changes to the background. The first 2-3 times going through them is ok then it gets tremendously tedious. ITs less of an adventure and more of a treadmill at that point.

Its ok to like DA2 and ill defend anyone who does, BUT to give it a perfect score when there are actually bad things in the games design, that shouldnt be defended. Nothing against Greg Tito, I wasnt one of the people who jumped down his throat for his review. The review did irk me somewhat and it really felt that his bias towards dragon age itself blinded him in his review.