Jimquisition: Joy Begets Anger

[A Curious Fellow]

Dragon Age 2 really was a top tier game. And mass Effect 3 was perfect until the last 20 minutes. 20 minutes which were later salvaged and fixed in a free update a short time later. Haters hate, nothing more to be said.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I cannot believe that this is actually a thing. I think "idiot" is being far too kind to people like that.

I don't know if this thing is really all that new, but it does pop up quite a lot. Especially recently with all the lists being made.

What surprised me though was that Jim has people being bigger jerks to him over positive reviews than negative ones.
Didn't see that coming.
Shame it was not just from "fans", but also Jim's peers.
:/ Kind of a bummer.

The fact that it's also coming from Jim's peers is the worst part of it.

People can like DmC all they want, the problem was by attempting to sell this rebooted title was, if it was successful, probably would have killed the original series in favor of putting funding into making "DmC2", which is why I think if DmC was a standalone game under a new.....everything, I would've given it more favor.

DmC as a new IP? would've been good.
DmC as an actual Devil May Cry title? it was trash to me.

But even then, I don't direct hate at people for liking it, I hate Capcom for letting it happen in the first place, because once again, Capcom prove they don't know how to deal with the West.

You don't get around the net much, do you? I don't really visit any gaming sites other than the Escapist, but even I can tell you that yes this is indeed a thing.
EDIT: OOPS Quoted wrong person. Ignore this Vaccine.

 

[animeh1star1a]

I honestly don't think people don't like certain picks for GOTY or reviews giving positive reviews because it feels like a a coop out. For example, they pick the game that is either the most popular (ie claiming AC3 was the best narrative of the year because their were no other choices), or they pick the game that a company paid they to pick. It's not always justified, and probably it's rarely justified, but at times it feels like the reviews and the best games awards are paid ad space for certain games that may or may not over shadow genuinely great titles that had little marketing to begin with.

 

[irishda]

Now kids, we're going to explain the difference between subjective and objective.

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)

See kids, phrases such as "most impressive", "still holds excellent", and "looks like" are subjective in nature. That's because things that are objective in nature are verifiable and measurable. For instance, "TW2 had among the highest polygon count when it was released" is a measurable statement and therefore is objective. Can you measure impressiveness? I think not.

- 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)

Uh oh. There's those phrases again. Just how do we measure "beautiful" and "interesting"? And how are we determining "well designed environments"? Is Pac Man a "well designed environment"? We talked about Mr. "Look like" before too. But hope's not lost kids. "Recycled dungeons" IS something that can be measured. Are all of the dungeons the exact same layout and style? Do the characters exhibit duplicate behavior? Two objective sentences out of four is on the right track, kids!

- TW2 also gets an edge in musical score, sound effects and, I dare say, voice work. (some question of taste, but mostly objective)

Only some? Haha, nice try, poster. And you were doing so well in the last one, but it looks like we've regressed again back to subjective territory. What gives the musical score and effects the edge? What measurable system are we using?

- 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)

Well the poster is certainly becoming more self aware now, kids. He's recognized objective differences that can be observed (can you just "mim-max" your character, whatever that means, and win consistently without planning?), and he's recognized that ranking these differences is a matter of opinion. Good job poster!

- 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)

Looks like the poster let us down again kids. Why is it a disgrace by measurable means? How does the UI work better through measurable means? And for that matter, what work of art are we talking about here? Some people have created works of art using human feces. I sure hope that's not what the Witcher 2 UI looks like.

- 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)

Hooray! We've recognized a subjective sentence again. After all, there's not many avenues that TW2 could depict a "dark, mature setting" in an objectively better manner than Dragon Age 2.

- 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.

Well, kids, looks like the lessons are finally starting to take. That's 3 correctly labeled subjective statements in a row! Just remember, objective needs a unified way of measuring, not just side by side comparison. Turns out this reviewing stuff isn't as objective as people think it should be! So long, boys and girls!

tl;dr: Reviews of every media are subjective, because the objectively measurable parts are the boring as shit parts no one cares about in a game/book/movie/TV show.

 

[irishda]

I'm allowed to be pissed with people who say the Star Trek reboot is a good way to go, when there's been decades of material that had far more heart and soul in it.

I'm allowed to be pissed with fans of Fallout 3, when Bethesda turned one of the greatest CRPG experiences, into a brown and grey walking simulator and people ate it up, because they don't know any better or aren't willing to give the old games a shot.

I'm allowed to have an emotional response when I see something dear to me getting mauled to a pulp and then praised by not only gamers, but reviewers who focus on the trite shit that every current game already has and presents it as the next gift from god.

I do not appreciate being called an idiot because of that.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, there's something I feel is missing from these debates.
(The following is my opinion and theory, not empirical fact.)
Games suck. They haven't always sucked, but they do now.

Ever wondered why current indie games are so massively popular?
Because they're not soulless, masspleasing, investments designed skinnerboxes. Nor are they limited in design or approach by advisors or consultants. They're wonderful games made by people who put themselves into it, giving us a piece of themselves and if we're lucky, they show us something about ourselves.

Games used to challenge us in all sorts of ways. They forced you to think, to do things that were genuinly displeasing in order to progress, to question your morals and ethics and had mechanics that you had to adapt to.

When I say that games suck, I don't mean they horrible or unplayable messes or that they don't have any justifiable content. Games have gone stale, much like movies have, where creators take the content that evokes the biggest response and then oversaturate us with it, neglecting the context, the flavour and the setting.
In games, you save the world, or the galaxy, again and again and again, because that's when the stakes are the highest, that's when you become the ultimate hero. In that process, there's only the big picture and everything that supports and creates the story is neglected in tropes, unrelatable situations and overused storyarcs, which brings me back to indie games.
They're down to earth. They might not challenge you ethically or morally, but they often bring a simple point that makes you think and widen your perspective, like Thomas Was Alone,

Jim likes Bioshock and likes it in part due to its violence. I found most of the violence to be far too much, it ripped me out of the meager immersion there was and compounded the lazy design of implementing tons of action because "that's what works" and that's what people expects. Playing a depressive alcoholic who is able to take on hundreds of fanatics by himself along with a woman he's supposed to keep safe at the same time is ridiculous.
In other words, I think it's an otherwise beautiful game that is too scared to stand apart and relies on repetative and frankly trite gameplay that we've seen in dozens of other shooters. It's two predecessors were, in my opinion, vastly superior in atmosphere and characters.
Was it one of the better games of 2013? Sure, whatever, but it did not deserve the global praise that it received.

I'm not going to bash you because you like a game, but I am dissapointed that you don't expect a higher quality or at least don't show it.

Uh oh, kids. Sounds like yet another poster who missed out on the difference between objective and subjective! Well, we can't win 'em all.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Eerrrr no the more people mindlessly enjoy crap the more crap we get. So I am with the haters on this. And it?s not just games all media is made less by the unwashed masses enjoying poor quality crap. If the average of media was not BS and chips I would have little to complain about.
DMC Dante is stupid BUT half of the theme and the gameplay shine threw, tho it feels like the shortest one yet. Dragon Age 2 is unplayable on the PC(they never should have gotten rid of party control and dumbing everything down to a button masher did not help?shit they could have at least left the full Gdamn mod tools in it so it could be fixed?..) and it?s not that well written but then neither was the first one. Mass Effect was a fun ride but it?s a huge let down to boot. The Witcher 2 was not all that hell the Witcher itself has issues.

Opinions aside no not everything sucks even though I complain that everything sucks, in my tiny world I view things based on what could be done rather than whatever sperm and poo ridden BS we get.
I hope things come out good I try hard to hope most things come out good but most of the time they come out average or worse. It?s getting to the point if it cannot be altered with a mod, code breaker/action replay or trainer it?s not worth my time to fool with the unbalanced train wreck before me. Games these days are so easy or annoyingly stupid in mechanic design I?ve had it with throwing my money away. The real crime is not allowing people to use a code breaker or action replay to customize games anymore. I don?t care about trophies or online stats, I want to have fun not be forced to sit through someone?s bad theatrical play or annoyingly dumb mechanics.

What we really need is more fine tuning options that lets us rebalance a game to our tastes(set XP/Gold drop rate, set location damage amount or make it so it?s easier to kill the player but harder to kill enemies only location damage is amped and headshots kill a target instantly, least if they are human, or turn off certain annoying mechanic stuff and such ). Give us more options to tweak a game with, who cares if tis unbalanced or ?cheating? if you are such a stickler for playing the real thing then don?t use the menu options. LOL

On a side note I had some fun playing with the scripts to Wolfenstine I up?d the hit points to the weak points on the big armored guys to 100 and you have to destroy 2 or 3 of them, those were epic fights! I?ve not done much to Fallout 3 and NV other than making comical weapons I don?t really use(tho I made a slew of ammo types for all the base ammo) I up?d the potency on the drugs and tripled their addiction rates and attribute reductions. Other than that there?s no easy way to redo Damage threshold in NV as so melee is not so over powered I got tired of single hits from death claws killing me so I up?d the DT on the armor I am wearing(old world blues stealth suit with power armor stats for the heck of it) still had to raise the DT as so now it takes 3 hits from a death claw to kill me LOL.

More rambling, your still here? Dear god! Aherm?? Anyway they could implement an action reply system for today?s consoles only it works based off codes that are gathered from the server, new codes go through the server all online stat taking and trophies and such is disabled. So all the codes have to be cleared first hell they can even sell code packs to games. I would not mind spending 50$ for the disc and 10$ a month for such a service as long as I get access to all the codes they have but alas there I go thinking on what can be done rather than being satisfied with what we have??..

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Yes, you tie yourself somewhat to games that you like. I think it's because they do things that you like, implement good mechanics, have good characters, whatever. If that's the case, why is it strange that you are also tied to things you dislike because your values are not fulfilled by that thing. Someone liking a game you dislike is essentially committing the same 'crime' someone disliking a game you like is, if they like it for reasons that correspond to the reasons you dislike it. I think in the end it comes down to self-interest. You don't want to see people praising things you don't like because you don't want to see more of that thing as opposed to things you do like. For example, I don't want to see people praising linear shooters and trashing sandbox RPGs because that contributes to getting more linear shooters and less sandbox RPGs. I think that's fine, and that's why I have a reaction when someone likes something I don't like. Another example, ME3's ending. It's fine that some people liked the ending. I hated the ending because it contradicted everything I thought I had invested in the series. If people are praising the ending and that's all Bioware hears, they're going to get the impression that it was well-received. It was only because a lot of people who hated the ending spoke up that anything, however inconsequential, was done about it.

Although I will say that in situations where you have no investment in the thing someone else likes, that's less justifiable. For example I'm at the point where when I hate music from a certain person or group, I realise it's because I'm not the target audience, and since their target audience does not overlap with the target audience of music I do like, it's fine that it exists and that other people like it.

tl;dr: I see openly criticising or praising things as a way of showing your preferences in the hopes that will be considered by content creators as part of the larger market.

 

[nuttshell]

tl;dr: Reviews of every media are subjective, because the objectively measurable parts are the boring as shit parts no one cares about in a game/book/movie/TV show.

I'll take this sentence on it's own, as I don't think the post you quoted did a particularly good job at pointing out the differences of the two games either.


I care about how well the game will run on my machine. I care about how the game's interface and the controls work on my machine of choice. Is the font unreadable at some resolutions? Is it tiresome to navigate through the menues because the items are sorted alphabetically? The interface was almost a game breaker to me in TW2 - untill I found a way to replace the font, I couldn't read anything in it.
I care about wether or not a game reuses it's assets. I can listen to a song/look at the same scenery a couple of times in succession but eventually it will bore and annoy me.
I also care about wether the characters, the plot and the story make cohesive, believable sense. If the game doesn't take itself too seriously this doesn't matter to me but if the game is marketed to me as a fantastic, mature story, full of choices with real consequences, I expect something different than choosing what necklace a character will wear for the rest of the game.

I had my fun with Bioshock Infinite, Mass Effect 2/3 and even Dragon Age 2. I just can't take people (more importantly, critics) seriously, that describe them as "near perfect" or "a masterpiece".

 

[Britpoint]

*snip*

I'm not going to bash you because you like a game, but I am disappointed that you don't expect a higher quality or at least don't show it.

"I'm not going to bash you because you like a game. But I am going to bash you because you don't like the *right* games."

For the record, I loved the original Fallout games AND Fallout 3. So there you go, I'm not some ignorant modern gamer not demanding enough from my games. I played and liked the old stuff, I played and liked the new stuff. You gonna get pissed at me for that?

I'm sorry you didn't enjoy Fallout 3. It's a shame, it would have been nice if you didn't feel let down by it. But the fact that I didn't happen to feel let down by it is not something for you to get angry at me about. Am I supposed to just ignore the fact that I enjoy a game and hate on the developer as some sort of show of camaraderie to the section of the fanbase that didn't experience the same level of enjoyment as me? Is that the only thing I can do to stop you being mad?

If so, then you need to have a good long look at yourself in the mirror. If you didn't like Fallout 3? Fine. You wanna resent someone for that? Fine. But, and this is Jim's point, resent the guys that chose to make it that way, not the guys who happened to like what came out.

 

[Floppertje]

snip

How do you have an investment in something you dislike? Do people come over to your house and beat you up unless you play ME3's ending over and over again? are you really complaining about how there's too much of something you don't like, don't buy and that has no influence on you? Do you somehow expect IW, Treyarch or DICE to say 'you know what? everyone's doing MMS, we'll just make a fantasy rpg instead. that's not going to happen. and you know what? If DICE hadn't been so successful with BF, they wouldn't be making Battlefront. I've been dreaming of a new Battlefront ever since my ps2 died! So yes, I'm glad BF exists, I'm glad people enjoy it and even though I dislike the games themselves, I'm glad that because of them I'm getting something I DO want.

 

[Grabehn]

My god did I hate when the whole DMC ordeal came up, a classmate of mine wouldn't shut the fuck up about how "those" guys were ruinning the franchise and changing a "super cool" character into an "emo child" and how awful they were to even put a scene in which they mocked the lack of white hair.

And then he had to take different classes because he screwed up, and I LOVED that day.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

snip

How do you have an investment in something you dislike? Do people come over to your house and beat you up unless you play ME3's ending over and over again? are you really complaining about how there's too much of something you don't like, don't buy and that has no influence on you? Do you somehow expect IW, Treyarch or DICE to say 'you know what? everyone's doing MMS, we'll just make a fantasy rpg instead. that's not going to happen. and you know what? If DICE hadn't been so successful with BF, they wouldn't be making Battlefront. I've been dreaming of a new Battlefront ever since my ps2 died! So yes, I'm glad BF exists, I'm glad people enjoy it and even though I dislike the games themselves, I'm glad that because of them I'm getting something I DO want.

I'm saying investment as in I was a fan of the ME series and hated the ending and the last game by extension. Had I not played the series at all, not invested any time or effort in the characters, plot, whatever, then I would feel much less justified in not liking the ending, if indeed I even formed an opinion about it. In other words, it's not disliking a series, or a genre, it's disliking the changes or development of something you do like. And in that sense it is necessary to voice your opinion, because you are the target market, you are the one being affected, your opinion actually does matter to the developer, or if it doesn't, you should be trying to make it that way.

In contrast, I have never played any Devil May Cry games, ever, and think DMC looks like it has Bayonetta/God of War/Ninja Gaiden-like frenetic action gameplay, which appeals to me. However, I am not invested in the series, and don't proclaim to know what the fans of the series before DMC think or feel when they express their hate. And nor should the developer care that I am indifferent or think it looks fun, because I won't be buying it. I am not the target market and my opinion shouldn't matter, especially not before the opinions of the people who have followed the series, whether they like the most recent one or not.

As for your line about physical violence, I hope you're not trying to suggest that since it's 'just a video game' it doesn't matter. That my wellbeing isn't affected by video games. Because it is. Video games are a hobby of mine. What doesn't matter to you can matter to me a great deal. If I'm reading too much into that, I apologise and move on, but I do hate that line of argument.

As to large companies changing genres based on the flavour of the month, don't be ridiculous. I don't expect the industry stalwarts with repeatedly successful series to change anything. But when a new developer, or even a new IP, has the choice between weapon wheels, a seperate co-op storyline, singleplayer experience only, freeform classes, realistic aesthetic and weapons, etc. and 2 weapon swap, no co-op, online multiplayer focus/inclusion, structured classes, individual aesthetic and imaginative weapons, etc., the general landscape of opinions might have something to do with their decision - especially for large risk-averse companies. Note that I mixed those up, some of those ideas I like and some I do not on both sides, some are ambivalent. But when someone says anything against something I like, or equally important, in favour of something I do not, that can be an influence.

I will reiterate: If I am not affected by what I dislike, if it poses no threat to something I like, I have no problem with it. However, often I am not talking about a series I don't like interfering with one I do - more commonly it is changes within a series I like. So if someone likes those changes, and is visible about it, the devs may consider that. And moreover, they're also disliking the alternative, which is what I like, in many cases.

A good example, I think, is DLC. I hate DLC in many forms. Be it on-disc, day-one, version-exclusive, booster packs, poorly made, previously included content, or any number of other things. DLC is an issue that is pervasive in gaming. If DLC is doing well in some series, other series may (and have) attempt similar things themselves. In this case, practically any case of DLC I disagree with has the potential to hurt series I like.

I'm going on a bit. Basically, I don't get Jim's saying that there are people who hate other people just for liking something they dislike. I am not one of those people. I am definitely not one to rage or to harrass. But I do feel my input is required, for my own selfish reasons of wanting games I like to become better for me rather than worse, in cases where I am invested. Where I am the fan of the series. Where what I like has been changed, and the change praised by someone, that is disliking what I like as well as the inverse. It's all the same, and I have the obligation to push for what I want in a game because the companies making the games I have been playing want a good, clear image of what their players want in subsequent games, and it's partially my job, if I want games that I will like, to present that.

 

[Coppernerves]

To call a game I don't enjoy, enjoyable, may cause those like me, who wouldn't enjoy it, to waste money on it instead of games more to their taste.

It is therefore understandable to be angered by people drowning out criticism of games while singing their virtues to the heavens.

This is no excuse though, to start on personal insults, even if you're genuinely angered, and not merely looking for any "excuse" to put someone down, indeed, such tomfoolery simply wastes time and space which could otherwise be used to point out why you didn't enjoy the games, while making people less receptive to your opinion.

Therefore before posting, it is wise to take a moment to make sure you're calm, and proof-read ones' entry.

 

[Undomesticated Equine]

Haha man welcome to the internet. What you talk about has been here way longer than video games and it is not exclusive to games and it will not go away. Just ask some metalheads what do they think about mainstream music or tell them that you think Metallica is a great band, depending on who you will ask you may be in for a treat. Not all metalheads are like that same as not all gamers or ME fans will shit on you for liking ME3 ending.

 

[Itsthefuzz]

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.

I don't know where you made the mental leap you did to condense the point of his video into those 4 bullets. I think a better list would be.

1. Some Gamers are jerks when you like what they don't.
2. This behavior can be viewed as irrational and, regardless, pretty rude and unnecessary.
3. Soooo, don't be a dick and hate on people for liking something.

EDIT: And I don't think he even once condemed criticism. He just said you don't need to verbally attack someone for liking something.

Have a problem with people liking Deus Ex? Fair enough, explain your issues with the game. Don't just say "Everyone who likes Deus Ex: HR is a moron who couldn't tell a DX game from a pile of garbage."

Also HR was awesome.

 

[Cybylt]

My god did I hate when the whole DMC ordeal came up, a classmate of mine wouldn't shut the fuck up about how "those" guys were ruinning the franchise and changing a "super cool" character into an "emo child" and how awful they were to even put a scene in which they mocked the lack of white hair.

And then he had to take different classes because he screwed up, and I LOVED that day.

There was a lot of hate like that, but there were also legitimate complaints because it turned from... well, Devil May Cry, with frenetic, tight action and a high skill ceiling into something more akin to God of War or Lords of Shadow with floaty single button combat. The change from the skill rating system being based around constantly changing up your combos and technique to damage based, where you can get SSS rank from using the heavy attack four times in a row or just mashing the shoot button after launching an enemy was pretty negatively viewed too.

And when these complaints arose, developer and by extension journalistic response was "Shut up guys, we get it you don't like the hair." Which was dickish and incredibly condescending.

DmC is a competent western action game, with the exception of the bugged final boss fight but it's not something that lives up to the gameplay standards of the brand. And new Dante isn't emo, he's an asshole, there's a difference and that kid should learn it.

[
In contrast, I have never played any Devil May Cry games, ever, and think DMC looks like it has Bayonetta/God of War/Ninja Gaiden-like frenetic action gameplay, which appeals to me.

Those games aren't the same genre though. DMC(1, 3 and 4) Bayonetta, and maybe Ninja Gaiden are stylish action games (also known as CUHRAAAAZEEE Games) while God of War is a hack and slash more in the vein of Dynasty Warriors with a bunch of window dressing to make people think they aren't playing Dynasty Warriors... and everyone totally bought it. And DmC is in the latter category.

 

[gamegod25]

No, I can understand why someone liking something you hate can make you mad. There are a number of games I absolutely despise and if someone told me they liked them, well, I'd tell them to fuck off too. It's not that I want them to not be happy, but more I cannot fathom why they would find enjoyment in something (that in my opinion) is shit. And by doing so I will look at them just as poorly. Is that fair or mature, probably not, but that's just how it is. And honestly I don't that is necessarily a bad thing, it just needs to be kept to an appropriate level. Maybe not look to them for advice on games to buy but certainly not make death threats or shit.

 

[Caius]

There was an excellent example of this very recently, in our very own Escapist, that i'm intrigued as to why Jim didn't mention. The "Papers, Please Vs The Last of Us" debacle for the game of the year award.

While many people loved both games, people were so focused on their hatred for Papers, Please, that they started bashing it over and over again, claiming to have registered specifically to vote AGAINST it. Now, i'm 100% ok with fans voting, or registering to vote for their favourite game, but i think it says something about our community as gamers, that a game can win, not out of love, but out of hate for the "enemy".

That's very very grim....

 

[I.Muir]

Your own gaming experience is not the same as others, this is something we learn to accept.

Regardless of acceptance however is knowing how to behave on the internet. Something people do not seem to know how to do. There is a difference between firmly explaining a person is wrong, not even in a polite way and sending them threatening and abusive messages. Like the stupidly insane backlash from the cod devs for altering gun behavior slightly.

 

[Rakschas]

i think jims message holds no thruth unless he starts rating games as either "i liked it" or "i didnt like it".

if a professional game reviewer however gives those games a "score" that gives us the impression that a somewhat objective standart is applied, which i dare say is the reason people bother to read such things in the first place. if the the outcome of such a review is, that a game whos obvious flaws are either unmentioned or credited but do not influence the rating at all, then people are in my opionion right to ask if the reviewer is doing his job properly.

a game reviewers word holds some weigth, simply because the score he gives a game tends do influence sales. so, if you like bad stuff, please do. but dont go around giving flawed work high marks on a scale that you know your readership considers at least semi objective simply because some aspect of it struck your fancy. that is not what i consider good critique.

if you get some backlash for that, please suck it up. youve just partaken in an act that is percived as to having encouraged the games industry to produce more product with the same flaws youve so generously overlooked, because obviously people let stuff like this fly. that is an injustice and justifiable reason for outcry. anger is in this scenario a reasonable and absolutely healthy resonpse. because you are percived to partake in the destruction of something, that is valued by others.

so no jim, im not with you on this one. sorry.