Jimquisition: Joy Begets Anger

[zinho73]

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 particularly 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.

Everything just gets mixed up in the sea of rage.
I completely agree with you. Tito's review is mediocre at best.
Also, the rage does not come because the reviewer liked the game, but in most cases because the reviewer failed to address the features of the game properly.

I understand that a review is not just an opinion (although it has a lot on it), but a tool to orient consumers. When reviewers fail to point flaws, quirks and lack of features it just feels unprofessional.

Not a reason to hate, but reason enough to be disappointed I would say.

I can honestly say that although Tito seems a real nice guy, I lost my respect for him as a reviewers and simply did not read his articles anymore.

 

[JarinArenos]

Calling Dragon Age 2 the pinnacle of RPGs, and what games should be, was pure advertising, I dont care that he enjoyed it, I bought it because before that point I trusted escapist reviews. But no Greg fucked me over there by not mentioning the inherent flaws in the game of which there are many.

That's the point I think I was reaching towards but wasn't coherent enough to make. For reviewers, trust is a currency that gets built up with honest reviewing. Greg basically blew his wad in one spot for a lot of people and his reviews will never be fully trusted again. I can't think of any similar setup for Mass Effect 3 or Metroid: Other M, offhand, but I'm sure they existed. Greg just makes such a good example.

- kinda like how I think twice before clicking on any dramatic-sounding headline with Andy Chalk's name under it.

 

[Catrixa]

I feel like the issue isn't jealousy over liking a game, but rather disappointment and fear of future disappointment. From the viewpoint of a consumer, games are only made when they're assumed to be highly profitable. For all we know, companies won't invest in a project they're not guaranteed to make bank on. And this is what they tell us they do, so what else should we believe? Thus, if a game is successful, companies will want to make similar games to continue making money off of that successful idea behind the game.

Take DMC. I can't go into a lot of gory details, because I didn't catch the whole controversy when it was happening, but from what I know: due to character differences and gameplay differences, the DMC reboot is vastly different from the old DMC. People who played the old DMC, and enjoyed it to the point of being fans of the series, found the reboot to be disappointing. To compare it to similar events: how many TV shows were affected by the writer's strike? If any of them became severely disappointing afterwards, because they were now being written by different people (who may not have any clue what the original writers were building up to or had designed), it should be understandable why fans of DMC might see the new series as taking the game in a completely unwanted direction.

Add to this: if a game is popular, that is what the company will sell, regardless of "objective" (see: this is not a thing) merit. To fans, this easily means "You are a minority, thus we do not care about your love of the series. Until the very second we stop making more money than we spend on these, we will run this ship into the ground." If the only way you could see to get your beloved series back was to rage against those who seem to be causing the problem (spending money on something they like, which has been touted as the guaranteed way to get more of something you like), wouldn't you be able to understand why others would do this? What else can fans of a series do when developers won't listen?

tl;dr: People who feel trapped often lash out at things that may not be their captors, especially if their captors are unreachable.

 

[zinho73]

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!

And a great post. Agreed.
ME3 ending WAS bad.
Tito's review WAS lacking.
DMC new thing WAS weird (and maybe unnecessary).

There were disproportional responses to those things and the gaming media likes to hide behind the more extreme arguments avoiding any discussion whatsoever, which is sad.

 

[Britpoint]

Even worse than the weird anger of people who didn't like a thing being angry because I do like a thing, the really horrible bit is it makes me actually feel bad for enjoying something.

It's not a new thing, although it is certainly more out of control and vehement than it used to be. But for as long as I can remember people have had 'guilty pleasures' - a game or TV show or kind of music that they enjoy but hate to admit. Because other people will think worse of them for it. That's so terrible, feeling guilt just because you smiled at something your peers don't like.

For example I remember being home alone one day when I was a kid, just idly going through TV channels. I came across an episode of Desperate Housewives. Kept it on to see how bad it was, ended up kinda liking it. And then I thought: "I will get picked on so much if anybody finds out I liked this."

On the plus side, for those of us who finally get over our fears of other people's opinions, we have so much more to enjoy. Now I'm off to watch the last episode of a tacky ecchi anime before bed.

 

[ShakerSilver]

[HEADING=3]Stop liking what I don't like![/HEADING]and
[HEADING=3]Stop disliking what I like![/HEADING]

are equally petty. When someone likes something you hate they are encouraging the industry to produce more of what you hate, and it's made even worse if they can't articulate why the liked it and fail to acknowledge any flaws with it.

That is literally all it is.

Reviews are subjective. Games journalists have no "Duty to the consumer" in terms of opinions. Too bad if IGN liked something. get over it.

They're professionals. They're expected to be professional in they're critique of a game. No amount of hype, buzzwords, or "emotions" will a review any less professional. Reviews need to tackle games objectively (not exclusively so, but it's still a very important part).

 

[Dragon Zero]

I cannot clap hard enough. You have expressed something I've been trying to put to words for a while now. Thank God For Jim!

 

[Luminos564]

I think this is a kind of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" Jim. No matter what your opinion, someone out there is going to bash or criticize it. You liked CoD? Oooooh, be prepared for a verbal hoedown for liking a game whose core fanbase is not well liked. You hated or otherwise didn't praise Smash Bros Brawl as some sort of video game Second Coming like Yahtzee did that one time? Be prepared for a verbal brawl over the "injustice".

See, this is why I avoid general opinions on games and play what I damn well please. I am one of those weird mutants that can even enjoy a game like Cross Edge, broken, sometimes nonfunctional mess that it is. I even enjoy FFXIII, even though the current popular trend is to loathe it and stigmatize the game as "having killed Final Fantasy for good".

As weird as it is for people to be legitimately angry over positive opinions on games, I've been a gamer for a pretty long time now. I've seen more than my fair share of BS gamers do to other gamers and other members of their community that I just accept this as some new thing that'll die down eventually...I hope.

 

[Erttheking]

People tend to question positive reviews of bad triple A games. After all the reviewer may simply giving it a good review to a major company to ensure that the they continue to get games from this company. It would be interesting to see if people are generally more angry at bad triple A games that get good reviews or bad games made by smaller studios that get good reviews.

Also given that Jim made videos encouraging people to get angry at companies they don't like he shouldn't be surprised when people take this advise and apply it to other things.

I'm sorry, the Witcher 2 is better than Dragon Age 2? Please explain to me how that is anything more than your personal opinion.

It's reflected in the average scores received by these games. On Metacritic Dragon Age 2 got a reviewer's score of 7.9 and a user score of 4.4.
http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/dragon-age-ii

By contrast Witcher 2 got a reviewer's score of 88 and a user score of 8.4.
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/the-witcher-2-assassins-of-kings

So according to most people Witcher 2 was better than Dragon Age 2.

All that proves is that more people liked the Witcher 2 than Dragon Age 2. That doesn't prove that one game is better than the other.

 

[Erttheking]

I'm sorry, the Witcher 2 is better than Dragon Age 2? Please explain to me how that is anything more than your personal opinion.

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:

- 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.

Oh no, I haven't even played Dragon Age 2 and I've only beaten the Kracken in the Witcher. And I wasn't claiming that Dragon Age was better than the Witcher, I was trying to say that if someone was to claim that one was better than the other, it'd be their opinion and nothing more.

 

[Scy Anide]

I disagreed with a Jimquisition once, and then I watched it and learned how I was wrong. I disagreed with a review by Jim Sterling once, and that's OK; I can decide for myself what games I like and what games I don't. Thank god for Jim.

On a more serious note, how are there no TGFJ armband/wristbands in the Escapist store?

 

[AtheistConservative]

Sorry to break up the circle jerk, but it's time for the cold tyranny of economics to step in. Each year/dev cycle there's only so much money that will go into game development. How this limited resource is divvied up, ultimately controls the content available to us, the consumers. How publishers choose where to put their money is based on what sold well previously, and then looking at all the current project pitches and picking the most similar ones. So every time someone buys a crappy game, they are encouraging the publisher to make another crappy game. They are condoning it's flaws. Likewise, every time a reviewer gives a high rating to a terrible game, they are encouraging people to buy it, as well as concealing it's flaws.

 

[QUINTIX]

Absolute religious faith in the most cynical of conclusions leapt toward from the weakest premises (gave high/perfect score to an obvious cash-in sequel, ergo reviewer must be a shill) has become a substitute for healthy skepticism, especially on /v/.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

Rushed games like Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3.

What exactly was rushed about ME3? There was nothing rubbished about ME3 at all, people were just upset that they didn't like the ending, which was pathetic really.

Lazy sidequests; there are a very small handful of side missions that aren't eavesdrop, scan, return, repeat, and the ones that aren't are recycled multiplayer maps. of which there are about six or seven. Compared to the reams of side stuff you could do in the other games.

Auto dialogue; the amount of dialogue spoken by Shepard, compared to the amount of input displayed in the last games, is unacceptable. It makes subsequent play throughs boring.

Linearity; ME3 is linear as shit. There's very little deviation from the critical path, you will complete the levels in the order the developers intended, there is no saving one mission for later, or doing one before the others. Compare this to ME's 1&2, where you could take missions in any order you chose (remember that, choice? What the series was based around?). Not to mention how all your choices mean very little at the end; Spare the rachni queen? Doesn't matter. Keep or sell Legion? Doesn't matter. Tali exiled? Doesn't matter. Collector Base? Take a fuckin' guess. If you track the choice progression over the course of the series, it resembles two forks who've been welded together at the tips of the tines. People are quite justifiable angry that the series ultimately became a Morton's Fork.

The Ending; seeing as how the game's hype was based around "seeing how it all ends", the fact it ended on a travesty of writing is deplorable. It's rushed in the sense that it was hacked together in about a week or so before the end of crunch time, by two people who locked out the rest of the team (at least according to various sources), and ended up being about the same in all permutations, save for color. This ending was in direct contradiction to what Bioware said before hand after the game had gone gold.

So no, I don't think fans being angry over being lied to and spat on is pathetic.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

.... 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.

Sweeping generalizations are the bread and butter of games journalism.

And I'm frikkin' sick of it. I mean, god forbid games journalists come off their ivory towers and engage the masses without lording over them.

I have the sneaking suspicion that the real problem lies with the journos themselves.

 

[Redd the Sock]

Two elements:

1) There can be a lot of hate with that positivity. I've seen more that my fair share of "If you don't like [game] then you're a [childish insult]" topics in my time, and they're just as hateful, and full of arrogance and pretentiousness. AT worst, it comes from people that can't justify why we should share their like, if they can justify their like at all, but still expect us to share it. ME3 leads the examples as for all the people hating on the haters, I saw very few actauly explain why they liked the ending, and no one explain to me why I should share the viewpoint. Call me childish and walk away because you're a better person just by being more positive and not angry at trivial things.

2) Some of this is a backlash to this attempt to try and have review content limited to "did you like it" rather than "how good is it". These are mutually exclusive concepts. I can like something and still acknowledge that it has flaws. I liked Dragon Age 2, but you'd have to be blind not to see where the corners were cut. When this filters into reviews and awards you get problems as in your fanboyism, you've played favorites and ignored flaws or stagnation due to your more positive buttons being pushed. For example: one commentator I watch said that shouldn't Bioshock Infinite lose at least a half point for not being able to save at will. Others have commented on it being at best a clone of the last two ina new seeting, and at worst, as rather poor shooter. But people love the narative hook, so 10/10, and forget the rest of the package. Gone home has the same problem. Love the story all you want, but it didn't seem to be groundbreaking in terms of gameplay. Zelda ALBW: I love the thing, but aside being way too easy I see some nostalgia blinders on. Hell, the new Pokemon game is winning RPG of the year by people. I know it's been a slow RPG year, but I really want some qualfication behind that.

We're all free to love what we love, but when you're a reviewer, you have to justify your love (or hate) to the audience. Or at least admit that your praise may be coming from it doing one or two things right in a sea of potential flaws or stagnations. People still look to reviews and awards to decide what to buy, and we aren't wlays privy to enough knowledge of a reviewer''s tastes to know if that 10/10 is based on the whole package, you just it hitting that one sweet spot just right.

 

[PirateRose]

I found Mass Effect 3 to be very poorly written, it focused way to much on masculine romantic notions of death and war, they threw in horrible Jesus Christ symbolism, they broke the RP element of Commander Shepard, and it was arguably one of the most sexist games I've ever played. I can't help but notice many of the people who really love Mass Effect 3, tend to be of the white, straight male demographic.

It really gets on my nerves when I follow game critics I generally respect, who will jump on the band wagon to point out feminist issues, then turn around and are completely oblivious to bullshit going on in games they love and praise. Such as in Mass Effect 3.

Sorry. It's a little hard for me to get over people liking Mass Effect 3 when I see all these offensive problems, all these typical video game things stuffed in there to target the straight, white male demographic. The game that ended a series that invited me in by pretending for a while it cared for a wider audience.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

That's 2 videos in 30 days where you've royally fucked up, Jim.

Allow me to enlighten you on this one - People hate you for liking that new DmC "thing" because it is such an unmitigated pleased-with-itself fuck-you to the fans of the Devil May Cry series. It is effectively a prequel or a side-prequel (or some shit like that, it seems the writers couldn't fucking decide) that literally destroyed the foundations of the series. We already GOT a prequel, it's DMC3, where everything was laid out adequately, and no more prequels would be and never will be necessary. The equivalent to this would be making another prequel to Metal Gear Solid 3 (see a pattern?) where Big Boss turns out to be an alcoholic drug abuser and The Boss is a complete wimp who didn't earn her medals during the Normandy Landings.

For its possibly interesting level designs, that "new" Dante literally looks like the executive producer behind the game [http://static3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130714014107/devilmaycry/images/0/08/Dante_Tameem_Comparision_DmC.jpg]. Said wanker also had the nerve - the fucking nerve - to tell us haters the following fabrication [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/112373-Ninja-Theory-Devil-May-Cry-Skeptics-Secretly-Want-to-Like-It]. You do NOT tell your detractors "they aren't being honest with themselves" when you're blatantly self-inserting into a series loved by many. That is grade-A dick-waving and selfishness beyond everything else imaginable. There is no way in Hell you can love something that literally exists only to destroy its parent franchise. To re-use your analogy from your old video here [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ1qXJD76wg], DmC is the down-syndrome baby amidst what is respectively an aged but still respectable (and for me a very nostalgic) asskicker, a big old piece of shit, a young and hip asskicker that matured later, and then a Metal Gear Solid 2 retread without the mindscrew and retarded fan demand.

Next, I thought you were done with Mass Effect 3's ending, but it seems you still don't get why everyone hates it so much, so I'm forced to spell it out for you - Bioware PROMISED us kickass conclusions based on our playthroughs, as was always the case in 1 and 2, and they FUCKED UP so bad that they ended up committing textbook false advertisement that frankly borders on outright fraud. The major reason being that the ending (singular, that's not a typo) was not peer reviewed. So we gave Bioware shit for it, and guess what we got? ANOTHER fuck-you in the form of the "extended cut" DLC that fixed fuck-all. All it did was DRAG OUT the long turd that was already a shit ending. Bioware and Ninja Theory deserve every last bit of hate they get until they publicly apologize for eviscerating these two series and either go bankrupt (in Ninja Theory's case) or remake the game completely (in Bioware's case).

I don't want to hate on you, Jim, you bring a lot of good points to the table with your furious ranting, but like so many before and after you, you too have your weak points and they just so happen to be on the very topics you like to discuss. I dearly hope you'll stop being a hypocrite now on gender issues and the current anti-love/anti-hate bullshit issues.

 

[Sarge034]

I don't have a problem with someone liking a game I didn't or disliking something I did, but I have a huge problem when professional reviewers give something top marks JUST because they liked it. I'm sorry but Tito had no right to give DA2 5/5. Objectively there were bugs, lazy level design, poor character modeling, and massive amounts of cannon inconsistencies. If he had acknowledged these flaws in the review score and then added that he still really liked the game this would be a non-issue. Also, nothing ever deserves 100% because nothing is perfect.

Closer to the point I only become agitated when the person speaking seems to have not played the game. Please people, if you don't know what the hell you are talking about please stop trying to talk about it. The number of times I've seen, "I haven't played it, but I hear that..." is too damn high.

 

[punipunipyo]

last moment of the vid reminded me of a CreepyPasta I once read... be careful.... "figures" are usually spiritual in a bad way... good vid by the way!~ (don't know if I'm going to get backlashes for saying that)