Jimquisition: Joy Begets Anger

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

A couple of things.

1) Nice episode overall. I liked it more than I though I would. I completely agree that people need to get over it when someone else enjoys something they dislike.

2) Please don't do that thing where you assume entire groups of people MUST be lonely, hate-filled, joyless sacks of underage crap just because you disagree with them. Generalizations are dumb.

3) New thing? Are you messing with me right now? This shit has been around as long as people have liked things. There were cavemen that hated other cavemen because thy liked certain cave paintings of deer and shit. Maybe the reviewer hatred for users is new, but honestly, I haven't noticed it happening very much.

4) Since you pretty much asked directly for a reason, I'll throw my take in here. I've experienced exactly what you're talking about in this episode. I have disliked people for liking something. For me, it comes from a place of extreme irritation at undeserved praise. If something is clearly terrible, but it still receives praise, that's annoying, sometimes to the point of hatred.
Also, I think you dismiss the "It makes devs create more of the same thing" argument too quickly. Granted, it isn't anyone's duty to dislike certain games so the stop coming out. Not at all. However, that doesn't mean positive reviews don't have that effect anyway. When Bioshock Infinite receives massive praise for its story, there are companies that will tweak their content to be more like that. That can cause anger.

In the end, I think criticism of all things is generally healthy. If everyone sat around agreeing with each other, nothing would ever improve. By endlessly criticizing ever little thing about everything, we can make progress. We just have to be able to ignore the vitriol part and focus on the helpful bits. This includes everything from actual content to the reviews of said content. The lack of acceptance can get very out of hand though. Sometimes people need to just get it through their brains that things are liked by other people.

 

[Thanatos2k]

Also there's a very important distinction here that I think Jim is missing, probably because he's a reviewer.

When praising a game, there are two statement things you can say:

1. I liked it.
2. It's a good game.

These are two completely separate statements. You can like a bad game (I like Cross Edge, for example), and you can hate a good game (I hate Halo, for example).

Unfortunately, so many people in the world merge the statements and only ever advocate one thing:

1. Because I liked it, it's a good game.
2. Because I don't like it, it's a bad game.

Wrong. WRONG! People need to divorce their personal feelings from objectively looking at what a game is. The thing is, when someone else then suggests that a game you liked is NOT in fact a good game, people take this statement as an attack on them LIKING it, instead of an attack on them saying it's a good game - because they are unable to now tell the difference between the two statements.

Jim has fallen into this trap I fear, unable to separate criticisms of his statements about the quality of a game from statements that he liked a game. Same with the Dragon Age 2 review. It's NOT a 10/10, regardless of how much the guy liked it. He can like it all he wants, but liking it does not make it a good game.

People are not attacking you for liking a game, people are attacking you for saying a game is good. Unfortunately, you're a reviewer, so the two things come in the same package.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

I think I know why it exists and I'm sorry if someone else said it first, but I don't want to read the whole topic.

Hate for joy exists because people are mad that the thing they hated and think shouldn't exist is being given a reason to exist.

When they see people like Bioshock infinite, they see people who prop up "pretentious art bullshit" and give it a reason to exist.

When they see people like mass effect 3, they see people who like "dumbed down linear shooty games that ruined RPGs forevuuurrrr" and give them a reason to exist.

When they see people who like kirby, they....uhh......Actually that one has me puzzled. I'm a pretty big kirby fan and while Mass attack looked kinda lame, I can't see why they'd hate people who like it. Maybe they're afraid Kirby games will all become pure gimmick centered?

Like...Jim, how would you react if someone told you unequivocally that they loved Aliens Colonial Marines or Ride to hell Retribution, to the point of hoping more of the exact same gets made? Probably confusion, at least.

Granted, I'm not one of these people. If someone likes a game I think is absolute shit, I'll facepalm and go "well, alright, your choice, man. I guess someone's gotta like it."

Hell, I'm one of those weirdos sometimes. I LOVED Shadow the Hedgehog, despite the fact the story and dialogue was garbage and the gameplay was kinda broken.

 

[DTWolfwood]

The Hipster gamer has arrived. Its too mainstream to like games that reviewers like. When the indie reviewer points out that the game everyone else likes has it flaws, its hip to latch on to that bad review and laugh at others who enjoyed the game.

 

[Yuuki]

I can't help but feel alienated every time Jim makes a video talking about crazies that are apparently all over the community, I can only think "so there are crazies who respond like that? Alright then, interesting to know" and move along.
I can't really relate to it and haven't come across too many such crazy people myself, but that's assuming that this is common knowledge by now:

I could basically apply that to every JimQuisition video that harps on about the crazies. Yes, being in Jim's position I could imagine that he would attract a huge amount of attention from crazies and face the worst kind of crowds.

But ultimately people he's trying to target will never change and/or don't even bother watching JimQuisition videos (because it's not about game reviews), and the people who he isn't targeting (e.g. me) can only shrug our shoulders and move along.

 

[Darth_Payn]

I find it odd that Jim talked about games as "pure joy factories" when he opened the video with footage from The Last of Us, which is, as Yahtzee put it, Naughty Dog's Oscar bait to the Summer Action Blockbuster of the Uncharted series. Slavishly adhering to the trope True Art Is Depressing. Not my cup of tea, but I see how some types of people would be fans. I understand being angry with someone hating something you like, because it's easy to take it personally. When I first heard Jim hated Assassin's Creed II, my first thought was "Dafuq is wrong with you?!" and I still think that sometimes. I haven't played Bioshock:Infinite yet, but I can see how people would hate it for not being enough like the first game, since the name "Bioshock" is now synonymous with the mood, atmosphere, and thought-provoking story that didn't talk down to you, the player (see the trope Viewers Are Geniuses).

 

[mysecondlife]

I try not to be the person that shits on people for liking things.

I think I do a good job of it but it can be hard at times.

I bought Assassin's Creed 3 based off on Mr. Tito's perfect score on it. (Nevermind his Dragon Age 2 review)

It. Was. A. Huge. Fucking. Disappointment. (and I can even overlook Connor's "unlikeable" personality. I think he was fine)

Then he goes on to review Assassin's Creed 4 another perfect score. Does he think AC3 and AC4 are of same quality that warrants a perfect score? Or does he give out perfect score unconditionally to all Assassin's Creed games because he couldn't bother with reviewing it? To me, it raises questions on how he reviews games he plays.

 

[Symbio Joe]

Jim. Come here Jim take a seat. Why do you molest my childhood? It was all nicely put away with no regrets and you kicked the door in to remind me that I wasted time and money to get these fucking fantasy comic books.

 

[Amaror]

While i generally aggree with that statement and think that raging idiots should be shut down at every turn, one has to look out while doing that to not shut down legetimate criticism.
For example i clearly didn't like greg tito's review of dragon age 2.
Not just because i personally don't like dragon age 2, but because it was not particullary well done in my opinion.
It left out a lot of aspects of the game and glossed over others.
And just to get a bit unreasonable at the end of this.
If he likes the button-mashing combat, blander characters and unfocused story good for him.
But, while visuals are a matter of opinion, i just can't see how anyone can call DA 2 the best - looking game of the year were Crysis 3 and the Witcher 2 were released.

 

[magicmonkeybars]

So what happens when I apply the message this video sends to say Anita Sarkeesian who has build an entire video series on hating things other people love because she doesn't agree with them.

 

[Boogie Knight]

Not quite the same thing, but I remember a gal who really hated Persona 4 and Persona 4 fans. She touted the earlier Persona titles (mostly 2 and 3) and acted like a self described hardcore SMT fan. I'd try to defend the game, but she practically had her fingers in her ears as she was absolutely resolved to hate the most recent Persona title. Then I found out she finished Shin Megami Tensei IV and didn't know that Law path was not the same thing as "Good guy ending." In the context of her ignorance about the core series, her holier-than-thou attitude was... baffling.

 

[TheDefenestrator]

I know that Jim is making a larger point about a certain section of chronically miserable people who aren't me but I thought I'd throw in my two cents because I think the two big examples he used are problematic to a certain degree.

I didn't buy or play DmC because it's not really my bag. But I know people who are big fans of the series who refused to buy it, and not because Dante got a different haircut. Ninja Theory, right out of the gate, went out of their way to alienate existing fans by trying to cultivate a "rock & roll" attitude for themselves. They dismissed the earlier DMC games that many people loved and, in a presentation, even photoshopped old Dante into a frame of Brokeback Mountain to illustrate how "gay" the original Dante was. Which is kind of homophobic, pretty damn petty and not exactly professional. (Seeing that is what took me from a "maybe" to a "definite no" in buying the game.) In trying so hard to go for the "this ain't yo Daddy's Devil May Cry" they willfully pushed away the people who were most likely to buy the game. Resulting in a giant flop, regardless of the actual quality of the product.

As for Mass Effect 3, my sympathies are limited. If you liked or loved Mass Effect 3, or even felt that the ending didn't ruin the overall experience... you're the majority. I'm sorry but the persecution complex that people have about this game (on both sides) is amazing. If you liked it, great. If you enjoyed the endings of Lost or the Battlestar Galactica remake, fantastic. No one is trying to take that away from you. But in all three of those cases, there is a rational, reasonable argument for why those endings didn't work. They may work for you, but they don't hold up to serious criticism. I like plenty of bad movies. I have watched probably every Dolph Lundgren movie ever made and genuinely, unironically enjoy most of them... but I'd never make the argument that they're good. Because my enjoyment of something doesn't supersede it's objective quality.

I had an argument last year with a guy who loved Aliens: Colonial Marines. (On an internet message board because of course.) He would not hear of any criticism of it. Any time I brought up a valid point, not in an accusatory manner or even dickishly, he would get wildly pissed off at me and accuse me of trying ruin the game for him. He was such a huge fan of the franchise that he literally could not tolerate any criticism of it. When I tried to have conversations with people in the wake of the ME3 controversy, I was called all manner of names. Professional game journalists, and please go back and read some of the posts from the major websites in that period, were wildly condescending and didn't help in any way to bring a level-headed response to the controversy.

Bottom line: the irrational responses people have are never just on one side of the argument.

BTW, this is my first post. Hi!

 

[r_phix]

1. Because I liked it, it's a good game.
2. Because I don't like it, it's a bad game.

Wrong. WRONG! People need to divorce their personal feelings from objectively looking at what a game is.

Well, I can get your argument, but I think you are on a slippery slope with it ; because "objectivity" is an open-door to "focus group", like "what is objectively a good game?" ; and if such thing exists as a "objectively good game", then "let's do the same game ever and ever and ever".

For me, the only "objective" element is the "technical" aspect; the game is full of bugs, or the music is too loud, preventing you to hear anything, etc.

As I am a fan of RPG, I would say that the most important part for me for a game to be good is the emotional involvement, and how a game gives me goosebumps. And I think I would never be able to objectify that. If a game failed to do so, then it would be a bad game ; and I should say that, because if my friends ask advice to me, saying "this is an awesome game, but I don't like it" is like lying to them. This is not an awesome game, at least in my perspective.

And I ask people to be people. I let "objectivity" to machines.

 

[Wulfram77]

A reviewer who let's their personal liking for a game stop them from acknowledging it's flaws is doing a pretty poor job. That's not worthy of hate, very little is, but it is potentially worthy of being a bit miffed.

As for ME3, I think that's not a great example. The hate was bouncing all over the place on that one, and critics were lobbying against the fans getting what they wanted - a revised ending. And often seemed to justify their position on possessing some superior criticly wisdom, which is a good way to rile people up.

 

[Deadcyde]

.... I honestly don't believe you that the people responsible for this joy-hating are anything but a vocal minority. There's always been elitist twats but making it out like every second gamer is a rage machine?

newp.

And frankly i'm getting a bit over these sweeping generalizations about us Jim.

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't get why people are so hostile for someone else enjoying a ga...Wait, Jim liked DMC? BURN THE WITCH!

...I actually bought it in the Steam sale and while I'm yet to play it, the above is clearly not my real opinion.

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.

Frankly, the stuff from the Angry Joe review was freaking hilarious.

Also Jim, how do you know that the little plastic william dafoe isnt the real one and the person that signed that photo is a hack fake da foe?

You should have said "faux dafoe."

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.

It's actually not just gaming, either.

 

[Something Amyss]

.... I honestly don't believe you that the people responsible for this joy-hating are anything but a vocal minority.

You can sweep anything you don't like under the rug as a "vocal minority." doesn't make it true.

There's always been elitist twats but making it out like every second gamer is a rage machine?

It's been a few minutes since I watched the video, so perhaps my memory is worse than I though. Can you point out the "every second gamer" bit?

 

[infinity_turtles]

As someone who sees reviews as something to inform potential consumers, regardless of whether I liked the game or hated it I dislike positive reviews that fail to inform potential buyers of flaws far more then negative reviews that don't mention a games positive qualities. If I did hate the game though, this is amplified. If I had bought a game based on a review(not something I do anymore as there's other ways to find out if I like a game), I would be pretty damn pissed, and that did happen a few times. It's not positivity that would ever piss me off. It's people who are supposed to be helping the consumer not even mentioning potential problems. "Game Journalists" and consumers alike get pissed at publishers for things like having reviewers play SimCity in an environment where they can't experience the faults that come from it's online nature. Consumers also have a right to get pissed at reviewers for not mentioning the faults just because they felt the positives outweighed them.

That's not to say there aren't assholes out there that will flame just for liking something they didn't, but I feel specifically some of the examples given in this video aren't just cases of assholes not liking differing opinions.

 

[JimB]

I can only speak for my own experiences, but I've found that on the internet, there is a lot of positive reinforcement for anger and outrage. Some years ago, on my home forum, I realized how much time I spent being angry and made a public pledge to cool my tits with all that because I didn't like the kind of person I was becoming, and I was met with almost universal cries begging me not to, telling me that I was performing a public service by raging against this or that bad person, that I was improving the quality of the community by holding its members to the highest standard.

So if I wanted to retain the affectionate regard of the community, or at least enough of it to remain a popular voice, I had to continue to be angry all the time at people who offended me. My anger entertained others, and they rewarded me with praise and attention and camaraderie.

I like to think I made my own choices about my original dilemma and how much I wanted to let the anger make me into That Guy, but all the same, it was hard to swear off the rage. It had become less of an instinct than a reflex, and it took me a long time to calm down enough to be fair to people. My entire internet persona these days is crafted to be as polite as possible (while never forgetting that nothing about politeness requires me to suffer bullshit) as kind of a bulwark against that reflexive drive to feel popular by spewing vitriol.

How true that is for the average "you're a bad person for liking a game I dislike" sort is a question I can't answer. I notice that such people do exist, but I dismiss them as trolls and tend not to remember them after that initial mental shrug, so I can't really speak to their mindset. If they're anything like me, though, it's because anger wins way more positive attention than does polite agreement and/or supporting discourse. I do personally believe, though, that if we want to stop people from being furious at dissenting opinions, then the internet community as a general whole needs to provide less incentive to be furious all the time.

 

[ShakerSilver]

This is really simple Jim. People often see the people who like what they dislike as an extension of what they dislike and will often attack these people in place of the actual thing they dislike, since you can't really attack a game and most developers/publishers are unresponsive when it comes to complaints.

HOWEVER, gamers themselves aren't guilty of this. Many game journalists are guilty of this too. You pointed out DmC as an example, so I'm going to use that. When the demo came out, people complained about the game. Most fans of DMC, like myself, disliked how casualized the gameplay was, felt the removal of styles was a major step down, didn't like the game making getting SSS ranks too easy, and felt that the platforming sections seemed forced into the game. How did journalists react? They dismissed them for disliking their opinions and said they were just complaining about they hair-color change. This happened with Mass Effect 3 as well when people complained about the game itself and were written off as being just upset over the ending.

The major thing to take from this is that EVERYONE is guilty of this. People will always hate on other for liking different things and vise versa, and they are really both just as bad. This happens all the time. The only reason "gamers" are more vocal about this is because of how gaming media works and how everyone can be anonymous and say whatever they want without consequence. Of course game journalists or developers (people who can be recognized by the community) won't voice their dislike for things in such ways because they'll get targeted even more by the community (see Phil Fish).

There's also a major difference between just liking something and blindly liking something, Jim. As stated before, many journalists will be quick to simply latch onto a game that they enjoyed or were payed to enjoy and dismiss any opposing opinion as wrong. There's a difference between liking DmC while acknowledging DMC fans being disappointed and liking DMC while dismissing all negative opinions for the game. Not to say that anyone attacks against you were justified, but to simply lump all the people together like that is just plain wrong.

DmC and Bioshock Infinite are still shit. I have a right to voice my dislike of something and attacking me for saying this or simply dismissing me as "wrong" makes you a fucking hypocrite.