Jimquisition: Joy Begets Anger

[Entitled]

"Get angry", huh?

There is a difference between not wanting people to be joyful, and standing up against trends that you perceive as harmful.

In other words, there is a difference between enjoying Aliens: Colonial Marines, (wich you are entitled to), and actively defending the shady marketing that they employed. People are angry at apologists of negative TRENDS.

It's one thing to like Mass Effect 3, and another for the game journalist class to collectively fail noticing how massively broken the ending is, or to make rants about how criticizing it is destroying True Art.

It's one thing to like DmC, and another to be oblivious to the expectations that maybe the franchise as a whole should also form a piece of art, with consistency and respect for a core theme, instead of pandering to whatever they perceive an appealing style at the time.

If you are a newbie to a series, or genre, or medium, you are allowed to like it's bastard offsprings, not knowing any better. Even if you are an expert of it, you are entitled to have a dissenting opinion about the new direction being good. But yeah, others on the other hand will disagree about it.

 

[Mikeyfell]

But Jim, Mass Effect 3 did tangibly negatively effect my life. It was so bad it broke the last vestige of childlike wonder my cold black jaded heart was clinging to.
I am literally less of a person because that game exists

 

[Weaver]

In the case of reviews, it's probably the audience being disappointed. It's hard to find a game reviewer who you think is on the same wavelength as you in what they like and dislike. It kind of sucks when you find out they aren't.

Though, I don't personally get mad about it.

 

[Raikas]

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?

Do you really think that's where people are coming from? Because most of the complaints I've seen lobbed at that score are not from people who bought the game because of that review. They're people who either bought the game at launch because they loved the first one, or people who knew about the complaints later and still decided to give it a try, and just happen to disagree with the rating. I just don't buy that most of the people who are still mocking the perfect DA2 score bought the game just because of that one review.

And frankly, even if you do buy a game based on a single reviewer's word, surely you can own reading the actual review and being aware of that reviewer's taste (and whether or not it matches their own) rather than just taking note of a number.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

See, i'll admit when someone says they like a game I didn't, it pulls me up short. And I do, sometimes evenly snidely, ask how. But I'm not angry, I'm legitimately curious. I have a friend who LOVED Steel Battalion: Heavy Armor. And when I asked 'how? how can you like that game?' he was angry. Granted, I could have worded it better, but that game is notoriously bad and damn near impossible to control, let alone enjoy. and yet my friend swore up and down he had no problems and loved it.
Its times like that its okay to ask how/why someone enjoys a game. Asking how Pokemon Diamond is different then Pokemon Black/White is more legit then simply saying a pokemon players are ten year olds.
I personally thought Fallout: New Vegas was hand and first better then Fallout 3, and I've had to defend that point many a time. But I'm okay with defending it, so long as people want it to be defended. I'm always up for a debate, or hell, even an argument. But simply saying I misinterpreted my own opinion its just sad and cheap.

Sidenote: Totally loved ME3 too. ending could have been better, but hey, headcannons, am I right?

 

[shrekfan246]

Are you serious?
Are you seriously oblivious about all the sleazy business going on behind the scenes of game reviews?
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?
Would you as a consumer trust a single fucking review on IGN?
Do you really think game journalists don't have an obligation to consumers?
Oh wait, do you actually believe this is just about "random people on the internet liking something"?
Are you this naive or are you just balls deep in the swamp yourself?

Weak jim.
Very weak.

This is actually a good point. I often look at reviews of games before buying them and have bought games reviewers recommend before. Videogames are not cheap and I certainly wouldn't want to hear an apologetic, airy-fairy "it's just my subjective opinion, man!", after spending money, from someone being paid to spout off about videogames...

This is why it's generally suggested that, when reading reviews for games, you actually have prior knowledge of the reviewer or critic in question, so you can gauge their reaction to what you imagine would be your own. Even better would be finding reviewers with opposing opinions, so you can weigh the pros and cons each person felt about the game in question and come out with an informed opinion yourself, rather than seeing "5/5, guess I have to buy it now!"

For instance, by watching his videos I know that TotalBiscuit is very mechanically-inclined as far as what he looks for in a game, and he prefers the story of a game to serve the gameplay and vice-versa in a symbiotic relationship rather than a parasitic one. By extrapolation, I can infer that his opinion on something like Bioshock Infinite may not align with my own, as the mechanics of a first-person shooter won't necessarily be the first thing holding me up if the game has other strengths to prop itself upon.

 

[Ticklefist]

Thinking about linking this over on the Diablo 3 forums. You can hardly discuss the game there.

 

[PuckFuppet]

Simple answer. People _want_ to be right. People _need_ to be right. And people _like_ being right.

To put it in context, if someone likes a game but you dislike it then you're wrong. But if someone dislikes a game, and you like it then by that same logic... its possible that they are wrong!

 

[shadowxvii]

You're doing a fantastic job Jim.

Have a good 14.

 

[deathbydeath]

Is this what's happening here:

1. Gamers[sup]TM[/sup]: "We're dicks!"
2. Sterling: "Gamers[sup]TM[/sup] are dicks, and so I'm going to make you stop being dicks by being dicks to you until your dickishness goes away!"
3. ???
4. Problem Solved.

Bad Jim, that is not how you solve problems. Dicks breed only dicks, and you aren't helping.

Besides, fanboyish praise can lead to terrible things. Human Revolution was a decent game, but a shitty Deus Ex game. It had no subtleties from the first two, had no clue what DX was even about, and mistook saying "human augmentation" over and over for actually saying something about human augmentation. People ignored these flaws, though, and instead praised the game universally (except for the outsourced boss fights, of course). Now we have Thief 4. Same with Mass Effect 2. The story was undeniably shit, but people ignored that and got Mass Effect 3 in return.

True, you can like whatever you want, and I adore plenty of terrible/flawed things (KotOR 2 comes to mind). However, praising or rewarding a game for doing something terrible is only going to sow terribleness for the future.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Are you seriously oblivious about all the sleazy business going on behind the scenes of game reviews?

Wait, what widespread and common sleazy business is going on, or are you just repeating conspiracy theories?

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?

That's their fault for trusting a single reviewer. Part of being a good consumer is educating yourself to the best of your ability. Even assuming the person was a good consumer, you then have to consider that part of being a person is not agreeing with everyone all the time. It is hardly the reviewers' fault that someone disagrees with them, or do you actually want them to lie about their experience and/or attempt the impossible task of agreeing with everyone?

Would you as a consumer trust a single fucking review on IGN?

Yes, I do, but I actually have enough common sense to know that I won't always agree with IGN. I also understand that I should actually read the review throughly to see if something they are complaining about is something that I might enjoy and vice versa. Like I said above, a good consumer educates themselves and also considers their purchase, and relying solely on IGN is hardly doing that. At that point, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Do you really think game journalists don't have an obligation to consumers?

And they don't already do that?

OT: Have to agree, Jim. Even I have to consciously remind myself that people are bound to like things I don't like and that getting angry about it isn't worth the energy. Having civilized discussions is fine, and that will ultimately help better the industry. The fanboy and hater rages that go on, though, are hardly doing us any good. All it does is alienate us from critics and developers/publishers (which only makes things harder on us all) and also prevents us from adequately analyzing the games we may or may not enjoy to see what we can learn from them when looking at, discussing, and possibly developing future games.

 

[CitySquirrel]

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.

 

[Trilandian]

Best Jimquisition yet.

Bravo, Jim. Bravo. Thank god for you.

 

[spartandude]

There have only been 1 or 2 videos that ive disagreed with our good friend Mr Stirling and this is one of them. I will agree that we do need to conduct ourselves better and that the attacks on Jim arnt justified however people are perfectly entitled to get pissed off or annoyed when a review disagrees with them. Especially when he says that he understands that people get annoyed when a reviewer trashes a game they liked, well then you should understand why people get annoyed when someone likes a game they didnt. Its a two way street.

Take for example the Mass Effect 3 ....uhhh example he brought up. I get that people loved ME3 (some all the way through) even though i personally hated the game (nearly all the way through) but i do find it annoying that reviewers praised it to heaven and back, especially since almost NONE of them mentioned the ending was shit except for angry joe. So consumers get annoyed when there is a huge issue which almost none of the reviewers mention. And while its possible that the vast mejority of reviewers liked the ending, it does show that there might be a problem if the vast majority of reviewers are at odds with the vast majority of consumers they are advising.

Also lets take Dragon Age 2, i was unsure about this game when it first came out, but with lots of good reviews and and absolutely glowing recommendation from the Escapist I decided to pick it up. 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.

Long story short, We have every right to get annoyed, we just need to learn some manners while we do it.

 

[Toadfish1]

This goes back to the 70's, I think, probably a lot earlier. I remember reading about how Roger Ebert once described people who liked a movie he didn't like as diseased sex criminals.

...why did any of us care what this guy thought of games, again?

 

[Bruce]

I disagree - kind of.

The thing with a negative review is that if you don't buy a game because of the negative review, you're missing out but it doesn't really cost you anything.

If on the other hand you buy a game based on a positive review and it sucks - then you have lost out on both the money the game cost you, and the time it took you to play it hoping it got better.

I think a lot of the rage against reviewers who review positively is more understandable than reviewers who do so negatively, because there is that feeling of being cheated, particularly when you consider the suspicion a lot of gamers have of advertisers buying scores.

People haven't really forgotten what happened to Gerstman, and gaming journalism has always had a bit of a PR-ish edge to it.

This is why I find positive reviews more difficult than negative ones - you have to convey both what you think of a game, and what it essentially is in a way that the audience finds useful, and that includes the stuff that they can find off putting.

Which is pretty hard to do in 300 words or less.

 

[PunkRex]

I like my reveiwers/critics/internet talkie people to be themselves.

I don't expect to like EVERYTHING they do or vise versa, this need for confirmation in ones own tastes is perfetic. I like discussion and debate, having someone agree with everything I say isn't even close... thats just boring.

 

[Erttheking]

People shitting on other people for not liking the same shit has been around since gaming started. You're now just realizing this after all these years.

If he just noticed it, how come he used examples from over a year ago? Why did he say it happened to him all the time and cited a game that was released at the start of 2013? Just because he chose to talk about it now, doesn't mean he was ignorant about it until now.

 

[veloper]

To understand this thing, consider the following.

When you have a comments section for people to comment on a review, people who thought the review is poor instead of good, may also comment.

Some people mistake the use of strong language for real anger, when it usually isn't. It's just a strategy for many posters who want to stand out and not sound too dull or ambivalent. Confusing the tone of a post is an easy mistake to make though.

Also consider that the audience often does expect MORE than just an entertaining piece (ZP may be the usual exception).
What those negative posts are usually NOT about, is whether the reviewer is allowed to like or dislike a game. The intended message is usually about the reviewer not being critical enough, or worse, being suspected of not being entirely honest or fair.

The question of why does game X receive a good score and game Y a bad score, often comes up after the gamer perceives a change in the criteria applied between reviews, so for example one game gets bashed for bugs or for the heavy use of QTEs and for the next game, the bugs and QTEs barely even get a mention.
Some players may get annoyed by this, while for other players, their comment is only intended to be their different take on the game review, only the really short version, where the reader is assumed to already know all the unsaid bits.

Now you know.

 

[xPixelatedx]

I like you acknowledge the fact that people fear and hate others liking CoD because they don't want more CoDs being made... but then go on to say that has no negative effect? Uh... what!? And I think this comes down to the point you aren't getting Jim, the reason why people are upset when things like CoD and movie-games like 'The Last of Us' get high praise. CoD has been more a real, tangible detriment to the industry then any day one DLC, always online or poor consumer relations travesty you've personally complained about. Developers PUBLICLY say "We want the CoD audience". That's because CoD sells, thats because people like CoD. So of course people are going to get upset at you for liking it, in their eyes, you've identified yourself as part of the problem, as part of the reason why some of their beloved franchises have been digested and turned into brown excrement. Your excuses to "pardon" the consumers was flimsy at best, and I think you are going to have to find more evidence why consumers are completely off the hook in this if you want to convince more people.
As it is now, gamers have started to grasp that companies are just companies, here to make money, and they go where the money takes them. This isn't the 90s/20s anymore, no one in 'the industry' (outside of indi) is doing this out of passion anymore. The industry is too big and formal a place now, and too much money is at stake. People have lifted nearly all responsibility off these companies and developers and instead targeted their rage at the individuals directly influencing the decisions of the people who make our games. The idea is: "You like bad things, and thats why we can't have nice things". That's the mindset of the people who rage at others just for their preferences. Sadly, they aren't entierly wrong. Just look at the games that sold last gen, and look at the majority of AAA games now as we enter the new gen. While shitty companies like EA are to blame, so are the shitty people loving and buying their crap. They're the reason why EA still exists and is doing this now, so of course there is plenty of rage to go around.