And the Sith weren't?Zachary Amaranth said:The Jedi were all dicks, so where's the downside?UberPubert said:"Embrace your anger"? You sound like a Sith lord.
ME3 was a prime example of a developer responding directly to outrage over the ending. But furthermore, pubs don't seem to understand why people stop buying their product. EA is a prime example of this: they respond to lower sales by saying "well we have to broaden the appeal and make it more likable." when in reality that is why people hate it, and all of a sudden Mass Effect is just a Halo clone. So yeah, we can "vote with our wallets" but there's no guarantee that they'll actually get the message.UberPubert said:Pubs and devs rarely respond to "venom" in any meaningful way. When talking about video games the extent of the exchange usually begins and ends with a rash comment made over Twitter, or is silenced just a few posts in on a community forum where the topic is locked with a last word in from a moderator. What they do respond to is drops in sales, not the bile and hate that comes before it, because the actual comments being made - while directed at developers and publishers - are there for the viewing of the consumer, usually from game reviewers (professional or your youtube channel uploader of choice, for case in point see: The Angry Joe Show).hentropy said:It's a common conflict. Sometimes talking in calm, respectful tones doesn't accurately convey someone's displeasure with something, after all anger is just expressing the extreme of something. Publishers and developers simply will not respond or really listen to people who have legitimate gripes but aren't yelling about it, because it's assumed that those people will continue to buy the game because they didn't really hate it all that much. Expressing anger is the one way to nail the point home; people have a serious problem with the way you did something, it will hurt you in PR and will ultimately affect sales. Sometimes anger is the only real way to express what the extremeness of your actual opinion, and it shouldn't be suppressed because we all have to be stately gentlemen calmly working out our differences, because publishers and developers aren't willing to engage in those conversations. But legions of angry nerds? Yeah, they'll pay attention to that, even if they want to scoff at it or complain it's just a bunch of bile.
But as Jim said, one cannot flip their lid at every little thing, because then it just cheapens the effect of that outrage.
But I think we can do better than that. I think we can make our points, stand our ground and vote with our wallets without fuming at the ears over DLC or some nonsense and making broad, generalizing statements about pubs and devs.
EDIT: I don't think we need to get angry, and what's more, I think the kind of emotionally charged language we see from people who want us to get angry dilutes the message of what would otherwise be seen as calm and thoughtful criticism.
There's a lot of pokemon in this episode. Have you been playing X or Y recently?Jimothy Sterling said:Toxic
There has been much talk about how the gaming world is too toxic, too negative, too full of anger and rage. Jimquisition argues there might be just the right amount of it. The issue is in how it's used.
Anger is a powerful weapon, but like all powerful things, it must be handled with care. Venom can be harnessed to our benefit, provided we be careful not to let it spill into our own faces.
Watch Video
But there was also a lot of rage about one of the ME3 characters - a very crucial character - being barred from user access by a paywall, and yet nothing was done. Everyone was really angry about EA including microtransactions into Dead Space 3 and yet they still exist.hentropy said:ME3 was a prime example of a developer responding directly to outrage over the ending. But furthermore, pubs don't seem to understand why people stop buying their product. EA is a prime example of this: they respond to lower sales by saying "well we have to broaden the appeal and make it more likable." when in reality that is why people hate it. So yeah, we can "vote with our wallets" but there's no guarantee that they'll actually get the message.
I'm not talking so much about message board venom or whatever, but an outrage amongst a very large group of people, that spans beyond the local message boards? That can and has made companies respond in the past, and even if they don't directly address it at first, it could very well affect their decision-making going forward. You better believe that Bioware is going to put more thought in their endings from now on.
In my mind, he's a (rather portly) Death Knight general, now.UberPubert said:"Embrace your anger"? You sound like a Sith lord.
UberPubert said:I'm not even making a plea to side with the lesser evil here, I'm just saying not to embrace the philosophy of the side that is CLEARLY evil.
This is what I hate with Sarkeesian; her supporters (or the defence of her). Rosa Parks, really? How long have Sarkeesian been in jail? Where do the comparison become more than superficial? Nowhere, that's where. Rosa Parks is only mentioned in a desperate attempt to borrow sympathy. Every argument defending Sarkeesian is about sympathy, like it's a valid argument in itself. Every support relies only on sympathy.Zachary Amaranth said:Anita is a figurehead for a larger issue, one that's been building up in gaming for quite some time. As such, she's been rather scapegoated for the larger issue, so I disagree with the concept that it could only be directed at one person.
A lot of gamers are mad or resentful that women are being allowed into their tree fort[footnote]you can actually find many such sentiments on the Escapist forums[/footnote], and she came along and represented these things to a lot of people. In effect, this is the same result as yelling at a CEO for something that likely wasn't their doing. Or, to borrow someone else's botched comparison, it would be like blaming Rosa Parks (A rallying point) for the civil rights movement (something which had been going on well before Parks sat down on that bus).
The juxtaposition of that quote and the image of him sitting on a horse made me smile.Muspelheim said:In my mind, he's a (rather portly) Death Knight general, now.UberPubert said:"Embrace your anger"? You sound like a Sith lord.
"Harness your hatred. Make it useful."
Well, the Sith are clearly evil, but I wouldn't call them absolutely evil.Zachary Amaranth said:From the Jedi perspective, perhaps. But then, only a Sith speaks in absolutes.
What are you on? How are we going to "get" the rest of us to stop acting like fuckwads. Nevermind the fact that the rest of us aren't acting like fuckwads, you can't force people to do things. And especially not by talking in a video on the Internet. The only people that will take home Jim's morals are the people that weren't the "problem" in first place. Sort of like gun control.Zachary Amaranth said:How fortunate, then, that it doesn't have to. The goal isn't getting /v/ to stop acting like fuckwads, but rather the rest of us. And even then, it doesn't have to be all of us. See? It works out after all.
It's actually physically impossible for people to encounter an opinion without it altering them in some way. Basic physics. Add stuff to a physical system (in this case, sound and light signals to a brain), the physical system changes. Period. The idea that discussing ideas is "totally pointless cause the other side's never gonna change, man," is self-fulfilling, fundamentally untrue and generally used to mask laziness and indifference as sincere resignation after trying hard and failing.Moth_Monk said:What are you on? How are we going to "get" the rest of us to stop acting like fuckwads. Nevermind the fact that the rest of us aren't acting like fuckwads, you can't force people to do things. And especially not by talking in a video on the Internet. The only people that will take home Jim's morals are the people that weren't the "problem" in first place. Sort of like gun control.Zachary Amaranth said:How fortunate, then, that it doesn't have to. The goal isn't getting /v/ to stop acting like fuckwads, but rather the rest of us. And even then, it doesn't have to be all of us. See? It works out after all.
Any who.Moth_Monk said:This is bollocks Jim. You refer to "us", "we", the so-called "gaming community" etc. as if you're appealing to some singular collective. What you're actually doing is shouting into a cave. There isn't this "us" really. There's just individuals that buy, play and talk about video games.
Moviebob does this kind of thing too: Lengthy seminars about what the ideals of "the gaming community" ought to be. I have to raise an eyebrow when the rhetoric gets this political. It's like there's this idea that the gaming community is political movement or something.
The only people who your soapboxing will affect are the people that talk about video games professionally, video gaming journos (and bloggers who wish they were journos), who will go on to echo this stuff. Everyone else in your viewership i.e. average joes that play video games from time to time will give you a pat on the head for letting us here a good rant but that's about it.
You should know by now that no amount of soapboxing is going to stop the occasional few, individual haters from haters and the /v/ trolls from trolling. They're going to do what they want.
Edit: On the thing about "mekkin us luk bahd" - you do realise that the "non-gaming community" [whatever the hell that is] does not give a damn about "us"?
TL;DR: Stop taking fun so seriously, ffs.
One question about this all, Jim. How do we find out who to direct our anger at?Jimothy Sterling said:This is the kind of guided anger I am talking about.
You learned more than you let on.