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.
Jimquisition: Joy Begets Anger
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
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.
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!
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!
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".Thanatos2k said:
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.
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.
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.
.... 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.
newp.
And frankly i'm getting a bit over these sweeping generalizations about us Jim.
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 actually bought it in the Steam sale and while I'm yet to play it, the above is clearly not my real opinion.
Frankly, the stuff from the Angry Joe review was freaking hilarious.-Dragmire- said:
You should have said "faux dafoe."SonOfVoorhees said:
It's actually not just gaming, either.Magenera said:
You can sweep anything you don't like under the rug as a "vocal minority." doesn't make it true.Deadcyde said:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's the problem - there ARE things that are objectively good and bad game design! Yet people seem proud to cry out "It's all just opinion." No! No it isn't! That's why some designers are better at making games than others! There is skill in design, and there are things that are good and things that are bad that you can build into your games.r_phix said:
No, not everything applies. Some things some people will like and other won't. But there ARE things you can objectively call bad. Objectively bad writing. Objectively bad graphics. Objectively bad voice acting. Objectively bad pacing. Objectively bad mechanics. Objectively bad use of music. You can go the other way and point out things that are good.
This is what a professional review is SUPPOSED TO DO, drawing on their deep knowledge and experience in video games. Problem is, most "professional" reviewers don't even bother with this - they just trot out the "I liked it so it's good. Let me tell you what I liked and didn't like!" and call it a review. That's not a review! You're supposed to be telling me why or why I might not like it, not why you liked it! To make that determination, you need to analyze what is good or bad about the game compared to other good/bad games similar to it. You need to even make different recommendations for different types of people!
I can not like a game while still acknowledging that it is objectively good. Halo is a good example. I despise Halo and all it represents, but the game is solid.
Your enjoyment of a game is closely tied to its quality.Thanatos2k said:
A game can have all the parts of a good game without actually being good.
An entertainment product lives and dies on what it manages to deliver in terms of entertainment. Without subjective opinion to gauge the value of the total sum of its parts, reviewing and discussion would just be statements of measurable statistics. Like, how many textures are in the game, the amount of fully rendered staircases, total number of words spoken in the story, etc.
Welcome to effing humankind.
And way to play down the reviewers that work for sites like the escapist.
For what its worth these people have somewhat of an influence on peoples decisions to buy or not to buy a game. And if something like Dragon age 2 comes along... yes you are allowed to personaly like it.
But a bloody perfect score for a game that was anything BUT perfect? That is just wrong.
However the bile that follows... yeah i agree we could do without it. However i hope you dont advocate that from now on reviewers should not be critisized anymore for their more then questionable score choices. Come to think of it lately you have made many many videos about how its "wrong" to critizes the critics, and come of as someone who uses the.. lets say.. less intelligent portion of gaming kind as a universal shield against more well thought out critics, putting a label on anyone who does not just accept someones opinion as given especialy when its an obviously flawed one.
Reviewers like that are doing the video games industry just as much wrong as the hatefull bile spewing lot that attacks them.
These reviewers give EA and co. the apologies to continue to take a crap on games and gamers by rewarding their half assed works with perfect review scores, and the reviewers who gave these perfect scores should be ashamed of themselves, cause they are clearly not doing their job right.
Even baldurs gate 2 back in the day didnt got a 10 out of 10 but yet dragon age 2 gets perfect review scores across the board? Sorry but if you make such a "questionable" decision then be prepared to be called out upon it and stop whining that the internet is so mean to you.
If you post your opinion on the internet be prepared to have it challaned and be called out for it. That goes for everyone including internet critics, "game journalists" or reviewers of any kind. If you cant deal with that then perhaps writing for a magazine isntead would be the better choice... whoops.. i forgot.. those are in decline.
If you like a game thats cool... but if you go on the ineternet and declare it the perfect game because you personaly enjoyed it and ignored all the very obvious flaws AND get paid for said review... theres a certain amount of professionalism expected.
There are people who really really really like X: Rebirth
Wouldnt you call them out on their BS if they made a review on a website like the escapist and gave it a 10/10 claiming its the perfect game?
After all they did really seem to enjoy it despite all its grating flaws so they must be right.
Or do you call them out on their obvious unprofessional bias?
And way to play down the reviewers that work for sites like the escapist.
For what its worth these people have somewhat of an influence on peoples decisions to buy or not to buy a game. And if something like Dragon age 2 comes along... yes you are allowed to personaly like it.
But a bloody perfect score for a game that was anything BUT perfect? That is just wrong.
However the bile that follows... yeah i agree we could do without it. However i hope you dont advocate that from now on reviewers should not be critisized anymore for their more then questionable score choices. Come to think of it lately you have made many many videos about how its "wrong" to critizes the critics, and come of as someone who uses the.. lets say.. less intelligent portion of gaming kind as a universal shield against more well thought out critics, putting a label on anyone who does not just accept someones opinion as given especialy when its an obviously flawed one.
Reviewers like that are doing the video games industry just as much wrong as the hatefull bile spewing lot that attacks them.
These reviewers give EA and co. the apologies to continue to take a crap on games and gamers by rewarding their half assed works with perfect review scores, and the reviewers who gave these perfect scores should be ashamed of themselves, cause they are clearly not doing their job right.
Even baldurs gate 2 back in the day didnt got a 10 out of 10 but yet dragon age 2 gets perfect review scores across the board? Sorry but if you make such a "questionable" decision then be prepared to be called out upon it and stop whining that the internet is so mean to you.
If you post your opinion on the internet be prepared to have it challaned and be called out for it. That goes for everyone including internet critics, "game journalists" or reviewers of any kind. If you cant deal with that then perhaps writing for a magazine isntead would be the better choice... whoops.. i forgot.. those are in decline.
Yes and no.chikusho said:
If you like a game thats cool... but if you go on the ineternet and declare it the perfect game because you personaly enjoyed it and ignored all the very obvious flaws AND get paid for said review... theres a certain amount of professionalism expected.
There are people who really really really like X: Rebirth
Wouldnt you call them out on their BS if they made a review on a website like the escapist and gave it a 10/10 claiming its the perfect game?
After all they did really seem to enjoy it despite all its grating flaws so they must be right.
Or do you call them out on their obvious unprofessional bias?
We all have our rights to our opinions and we all have our rights to not agree with someone else on their opinion, but rage and wraith over it is not acceptable. I dont agree with anyone giving Bioshock infinite an award, it was a game that made me feel depressed that people revere it as the peak of FPS storytelling. But im not going to be mad at anyone for that, just a tad dissapointed is all. Just like im a tad dissapointed that gamers flock to games like treyarchs cods or the GTA series.
Wait, what?Boogie Knight said:
I haven't finished any SMT games outside of Devil Survivor and even I know that in SMT the whole law and chaos war is a war between two armies of pricks each attempting to screw over the enemy and anyone caught in between!
Law = good guy ending? REALLY? Removing free will or otherwise punishing wrongdoing so harshly that going off the super strict rails of "morality" as decided by the angels results in an instant death sentence is the GOOD GUY ending? REALLY?!
SMT doesn't HAVE good endings as far as I'm aware. The closest you can get are the endings where you flip both sides the bird and just bring things back to normal for a few years before they inevitably pull that shit again!
Law = good guy ending? REALLY? Removing free will or otherwise punishing wrongdoing so harshly that going off the super strict rails of "morality" as decided by the angels results in an instant death sentence is the GOOD GUY ending? REALLY?!
SMT doesn't HAVE good endings as far as I'm aware. The closest you can get are the endings where you flip both sides the bird and just bring things back to normal for a few years before they inevitably pull that shit again!
This might get a bit off topic but OK, I'll bite. It's been a while since I played them, so just a few basic things:erttheking said:
- TW2 has some of the most impressive visuals on release, and it still holds excellent over two years later. In comparison DA2 looks like a drab mix of brown and grey. (objective)
- TW2 has beautiful, interesting, varied and well designed environments. After a few hours in DA2, most locations look like I've already visited them. Let's not even start on recycled dungeons. Same about characters, and the way they move and visually interact. (objective)
- TW2 also gets an edge in musical score, sound effects and, I dare say, voice work. (some question of taste, but mostly objective)
- Combat in DA2 is almost MMO-like. Mim-maxing your characters often plays a greater role than tactics. Combat in TW2 rewards good reflexes and planning. You can't gulp down potions during combat. On higher difficulties (end even on "normal"), you talk to characters, read books, follow clues and prepare accordingly for major encounters. (subjective, I guess - some people like MMO-style combat better, after all)
- Some of the menu design and interface (items and character equipment icons, I'm looking at you!) in DA2 is a freaking disgrace. Some usability aspects of TW2's interface also leave a bit to be desired, but at least the UI works better and looks like a work of art. (objective)
- Both games set to depict a dark, mature setting. TW2 does it much better, with a world that is so lovingly crafted it could come to life (subjective, I agree, personal preference and all that)
- Both games tout player choice as a major theme. In TW2 the illusion never fails. DA2 offers you "choice" and seems to like to go in your face for a "fate is cruel, what you did didn't matter in the end". However, it often comes off as "we didn't bother to make the story reflect your choices, you'll take it as is". (subjective, I guess, some could end up liking DA2's storytelling and never question it)
I'll stop here and just put it simply: the world of TW2 felt much more engaging and engrossing. That the game is much more memorable and played better (ok, subjective) is what I'm personally interested in.
How about you? You have played through both games, right? Tell us objectively why Dragon Age 2 is a better game than the The Witcher 2. I'm not even going to suggest someone to explain how DA2 could get a perfect score if the score system is actually meant to compare games in any equitable manner.
Great video on an issue that has been bothering me for a while Jim. I'm suprised you didn't bring up Yahtzee getting backlash for naming Bioshock Infinite as his game of the year, being genuinly angry at him for choosing a game they happened to not like.
I also would love to go off about how Bioshock infinite gets tons of hate for being a corridor shooter when the exact same people are waiting in suspence for the next half life game. But I feel that would be horribly off topic and just asking to start an argument with someone. So I'll save it for another video.
I also would love to go off about how Bioshock infinite gets tons of hate for being a corridor shooter when the exact same people are waiting in suspence for the next half life game. But I feel that would be horribly off topic and just asking to start an argument with someone. So I'll save it for another video.
