Poll: A List of Problems in the Gaming Community That Make Me Rage

[Naota_391]

I completely disagree. I think Mass Effect has a good story. I think that GTA IV, up until about halfway through the game, had a great story going for it. I think that Red Dead Redemption has a good story. I think that Bioshock had a great story. I think that Half-Life, Portal, Final Fantasy 4, Halo: Reach, Fallout 3, Heavy Rain, and plenty of other games have good stories.

And how could you say otherwise? Upon what grounds can we call these stories "bad"? If nothing else, I think they're better than those who told similar stories before. Why? Because there's an element of the unexpected. There's a new element that can barely be accounted for. One that is let loose, and after that, it's quite possible that ANYTHING could happen. And some games really run with that.

Players change stories. Sometimes it's quite literal, other times you might have to think about it. but take a game like Fallout 3, for example. There are dozens and dozens of stories in this game that a player can go through, and they can all unravel in numerous ways. There's a father to be found, towns to be defended, post-apocalyptic vampires to handle, a DS with a sense of justice, ghouls with hearts, humans without them, and more. And then you have all the things that you'll experience on your own, that aren't necessarily told be the dialogue of a character, but happen none the less.

We have a different view on what "good" is. I'll agree that all the games you have listed have above average stories among games, and many might in fact be consider "good" in gaming industry. What I'm saying is that, in the world of literature with films and novels, these stories aren't anything special.

So you're saying that if it's not special, it's not good?

 

[twasdfzxcv]

So you're saying that if it's not special, it's not good?

No I'm saying that we should stop saying "this story is good for a video game" and start demanding better stories.

 

[Naota_391]

ITT: You're not allowed to have opinions and now I'll spout some bullshit I don't even understand.

OP you're a terrible poster and care too much about what other people think. There are a lot of problems in the "Gaming Community" And people having opinions on video games that aren't the exact same as yours are not one of them. Bugger off if you're going to just sit there and whine about how people don't like games and if they don't think every game is great they're objectively wrong.

Before I call you a name, I'm going to give you a chance to actually go back and read. I'll give you the opportunity to understand that core purpose of making this thread was to make people understand that complaining is fine, but that if you're going to complain and would like to be taken seriously, then you need to have a better idea about the things you do and don't like. You need to better articulate your thoughts, and these are the ways that people fail to do that on a daily basis that immediately came to mind at the time.

I'll give you a second chance to process that. If you can do that, we're cool. If you can't, and follow the typical, unfortunate behavior of most morons and reply with the same exact thing you typed in your first post, with a tacked on insult here and there, then we're going to have trouble.

It's your choice, friend.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

What I hate is people calling wildly different games generic, and then going on about how people that don't play innovative games are stupid drooling idiots.

Because innovation should only occur to fix a problem or if someone has a quality idea.

 

[dark-amon]

My teacher was hitting videogames hard recently in class. (It had to do with ethics and what that is good in itself.) During his beating I started doing something he had shown us eralier this semester. (I universilized his argument) In the end I raised my hand and asked several questions about his beef with videogames. (the story-part in particulare) When I was just about to close the trap he realised and moved on with the session.
Why? Because if you universilize storytelling in vediogame it turns into interactive medium, and further: medium. By beating on it he was by the principles he was teaching beating down on books, TV and all other mediums with the same or somewhat identical potential as videogames.

Where am I getting with this? Beating down on story in videogame is like beating down on a book, wich story you found something to nag about.

 

[Naota_391]

So you're saying that if it's not special, it's not good?

No I'm saying that we should stop saying "this story is good for a video game" and start demanding better stories.

But I'm not saying "this story is good for a video game". I'm saying that this story is good. I'm saying that a story of mankind interacting with multiple intelligent species' in space sounds cool to me, and I like when it's presented well. I'm saying that I'm invested in those characters. I'm saying that I am charmed by the idea of an old outlaw roaming the desert in search of redemption. I'm saying a game with a theme of rising up and fighting an oppressive government, with dimension portal and aliens involved, sounds interesting to me.

I also don't quite what understand what people seem to think makes a story "good". To me, I judge that by if I find myself getting drawn into the story, if I find the characters likeable or interesting, and if I find myself wanting more and more plot development. Am I just using the story as an excuse to play through these scenarios, or do I care? Do I find myself invested in the outcomes and in the characters around me? A lot of these game accomplishment that for me.

I don't think a game has to be ridiculously new or mind blowing to be "good". "Good" and "absolutely amazing" are not the same thing. I don't understand this scale of "shit", "bad", "meh", and "super great" that people seem to have created for video game stories.You're either crap or you're not, with no level of in-between, and for some reason people like to compare each and every single story to the greatest pieces of literature ever.

Shit, for some reason people feel compelled to compare video game story and storytelling to books, but that's completely wrong. It's a completely different medium, and it's going to require approaching story in a different way. Not to mention, it's super fucking young. I'd like people to think about how look books have been around. How long WRITING and READING has been around. When movies started, they didn't have the most complex stories ever either. Complex =/= Good. Give games time to grow up, as they are, and don't be afraid to pat them on the back here and there.

 

[Naota_391]

ITT: You're not allowed to have opinions and now I'll spout some bullshit I don't even understand.

OP you're a terrible poster and care too much about what other people think. There are a lot of problems in the "Gaming Community" And people having opinions on video games that aren't the exact same as yours are not one of them. Bugger off if you're going to just sit there and whine about how people don't like games and if they don't think every game is great they're objectively wrong.

Before I call you a name, I'm going to give you a chance to actually go back and read. I'll give you the opportunity to understand that core purpose of making this thread was to make people understand that complaining is fine, but that if you're going to complain and would like to be taken seriously, then you need to have a better idea about the things you do and don't like. You need to better articulate your thoughts, and these are the ways that people fail to do that on a daily basis that immediately came to mind at the time.

I'll give you a second chance to process that. If you can do that, we're cool. If you can't, and follow the typical, unfortunate behavior of most morons and reply with the same exact thing you typed in your first post, with a tacked on insult here and there, then we're going to have trouble.

It's your choice, friend.

"If you have an opinion on this topic I'll flame you" Yup, sounds like you don't want people to have an opinion you don't agree with alright.

Maybe I should have edited that in to my post, that you only want people to have opinions that agree with yours, because that really sounds like what you're actually getting at here. Not everyone who complains about something in a game wants to be taken seriously like a fucking scholar or master of game design. Sometimes people just want to voice the fact that they thought the cars in the game looked like shit, or that they felt that running around shootin' dudes in this game was way more boring and repetitive then the last where they managed to make it fun.

Since when did a bunch of nerds whining about things they didn't like over the internet have to be a super serious amazingly official process anyway? Especially on this site.

Did you fucking miss the "/sarcasm"? In case you couldn't get it, that is SARCASM. I'm not defining the word for you. You ought to know what it means. The very end of the post asked for people's thoughts and what things might bother them. I was ASKING for opinions. Jesus.

And yes, it looks like you're following into the moron camp, but I think you're better than that, so let's go through this just once:

No, I don't think everyone has to agree with me. Who the fuck thinks that? Remember that I'm a competent human being behind these words, and just a punching bag for your lame accusations. I've got a mind, it works, so give some benefit of the doubt here before you start saying stupid things.

I don't have a problem with opinions. What I have a problem with is "I hate this game. This game is SHIT. This game SUCKS." Okay. You don't like a game. You are calling a game that took several years to make awful. Fine. Why? "UGH, the story is TERRIBLE. All First Person Shooters have shitty stories. The level design was fucking atrocious. Everything in the game looked bland. It was also really boring. I had to stop in these rooms and listening to people talk. I just want to shoot things." This bad enough, because you've already got contradictions in there, but let's say you cut them some slack. So you ask them WHY the story was terrible. "Because all video game stories suck" and because they just bitched and moaned every time there was a moment of story. Why was the level design bad? Do they even know what they mean when they say that term? Or are you they just throwing shit out there in attempts to justify their statement? Bland? HOW is it bland? I'll look up screen shots of the game they're talking about, and it's beautiful. Colors everywhere. Variety of levels and environments. What the hell were they talking about?

I'm calling bullshit on this phobia of setting expectations for intelligent conversation for nerds. I wouldn't be satisfied in any other kind of conversation if people were acting like this, so why should I settle for it here? Why should YOU settle for it? I'm not saying every person should have a fucking college degree in debate, I'm saying people should articulate their thoughts better. I'm saying people should think before they speak. And to be sure to drive this point home, I'll give you some fucking examples of how I could be okay with someone calling a game >I< like a bad game, or saying that they don't like it.

Left 4 Dead 2 - Don't like it? I love this game, but I could see why. Reasonable complaints I've heard are people saying that they really preferred the cast of the first game better. Whatever happened to them? It's hard to say. People will tell me, "There's no story. Where's the story? What happened here? Why are things like this? What're we going to do about it?" I'll tell them that this isn't what the game was about, that the game is just intended to give a team of people a fun time fighting through zombies. Except I realize that I know this because I followed preview coverage, interviews, announcement, revealings at events. Most people didn't. All they see are characters with personalities that are never given a chance to develop and a world with hardly any context. How would they know to NOT expect more? Or some people will just say they're burned out on zombies at this point, or that they could never find a good team to play with and the AI would let them die too often.
Fair. Enough.

Red Dead Redemption - I fucking love this game, but there are plenty of reasons to NOT like it. First off, although the combat is improved from GTA IV, it's still not perfect. It's really floaty. The buttons aren't always as responsive as you'd like them to be. There are some weird ass glitches that can really pull out of the game. The multiplayer is a fun concept, but it boils down to who can get the jump on who first because everyone has a gigantic beacon constantly hovering over their character that say, "HAY LOOK THIS IS ANOTHER PLAYER AND HE'S HIDING BEHIND A ROCK OH NOES". If you don't like running around and just exploring or messing around in towns, then this game probably isn't for you. Aside from that, you basically just run from mission point to mission point over and over.

If people want to call these games crap, fine. ARE they crap? Christ, no. Crap is what comes out of someone's butt. These are not that. But if they say they hated the game, then they hated it. If we disagree, I'll want to hear why. I'd much rather hear these reasons, or anything specific that they can point to even if they're the only person in the world to ever experience this problem rather than, "It was just bad. It was just shit. The story was terrible. The mechanics are fail." It makes them sounds tuck up and arrogant. I can respect something I dislike or disagree so long as it's at least done WELL.

 

[SomeBoredGuy]

My main two problems with the gaming community is the sheer sense of entitlement and tendency to burn like the flames of Isengard whenever a developer tries something different since they clearly know better than the developer 100% of the time, often before they even bother finding out what it's about or why they're doing it (see TF2 Microtransactions and Dante's redesign). You don't see this in any other medium. If a respected film director tries making a different type of film, they'll at least be congratulated for trying and people will trust that whatever they make will at least be halfway enjoyable. If a respected author tries writing a different type of book, people will trust that the author will at least try making something halfway decent out of it. Why? Because they've proven themselves. People trust them, and they if the result is slightly different to what they wanted, they'll accept that they aren't made just for them.

But for games? Suddenly the gamers are the ones that know best. I'd write more, but I'm tired.

 

[Balmong7]

There's a thing you're forgetting to add into account here; half of the users (if not more) on the internet, are retarded. And that's a fact. In all my years of browsing and forum-contributing, I have never met a community quite like this one. This is the only place where constructive criticism is appreciated and rewarded by a user-community.

So when if you made a post like this on any other average gaming-related site, you'd get shot down immediatly and be told to mind your own business. You won't be here though.

So even though I agree with you on many of the points you are making, I just want to make clear that The Escapist is one of the only places where you'll be able to get more than "Halo: Reach sucks because the story is lame" out of people.

Just saying.

If I were to give you a problem with the gaming community I'd say: Graphics.

I won't make a really long post about it, but it really annoys me how a lot of people seem to be unable to appreciate a game that doesn't look photorealistic. I'm not talking about anyone in particular, but today a game with less-than-average graphics will often recieve a lower mark in a review or else be hurled down by many 'gamers' because it looks a little gritty.

When you ask them why they think the game sucks, they'll just say "Well just look at it, it looks like shit" - And that's the only reason they can give you.

Again - This is not a issue on this site, because here, retro-gaming and nostalgia seem to be something a lot of people can actually appreciate.

you should play a little game called deadly premonition.

 

[Naota_391]

ITT: You're not allowed to have opinions and now I'll spout some bullshit I don't even understand.

OP you're a terrible poster and care too much about what other people think. There are a lot of problems in the "Gaming Community" And people having opinions on video games that aren't the exact same as yours are not one of them. Bugger off if you're going to just sit there and whine about how people don't like games and if they don't think every game is great they're objectively wrong.

Before I call you a name, I'm going to give you a chance to actually go back and read. I'll give you the opportunity to understand that core purpose of making this thread was to make people understand that complaining is fine, but that if you're going to complain and would like to be taken seriously, then you need to have a better idea about the things you do and don't like. You need to better articulate your thoughts, and these are the ways that people fail to do that on a daily basis that immediately came to mind at the time.

I'll give you a second chance to process that. If you can do that, we're cool. If you can't, and follow the typical, unfortunate behavior of most morons and reply with the same exact thing you typed in your first post, with a tacked on insult here and there, then we're going to have trouble.

It's your choice, friend.

"If you have an opinion on this topic I'll flame you" Yup, sounds like you don't want people to have an opinion you don't agree with alright.

Maybe I should have edited that in to my post, that you only want people to have opinions that agree with yours, because that really sounds like what you're actually getting at here. Not everyone who complains about something in a game wants to be taken seriously like a fucking scholar or master of game design. Sometimes people just want to voice the fact that they thought the cars in the game looked like shit, or that they felt that running around shootin' dudes in this game was way more boring and repetitive then the last where they managed to make it fun.

Since when did a bunch of nerds whining about things they didn't like over the internet have to be a super serious amazingly official process anyway? Especially on this site.

Did you fucking miss the "/sarcasm"? In case you couldn't get it, that is SARCASM. I'm not defining the word for you. You ought to know what it means. The very end of the post asked for people's thoughts and what things might bother them. I was ASKING for opinions. Jesus.

And yes, it looks like you're following into the moron camp, but I think you're better than that, so let's go through this just once:

No, I don't think everyone has to agree with me. Who the fuck thinks that? Remember that I'm a competent human being behind these words, and just a punching bag for your lame accusations. I've got a mind, it works, so give some benefit of the doubt here before you start saying stupid things.

I don't have a problem with opinions. What I have a problem with is "I hate this game. This game is SHIT. This game SUCKS." Okay. You don't like a game. You are calling a game that took several years to make awful. Fine. Why? "UGH, the story is TERRIBLE. All First Person Shooters have shitty stories. The level design was fucking atrocious. Everything in the game looked bland. It was also really boring. I had to stop in these rooms and listening to people talk. I just want to shoot things." This bad enough, because you've already got contradictions in there, but let's say you cut them some slack. So you ask them WHY the story was terrible. "Because all video game stories suck" and because they just bitched and moaned every time there was a moment of story. Why was the level design bad? Do they even know what they mean when they say that term? Or are you they just throwing shit out there in attempts to justify their statement? Bland? HOW is it bland? I'll look up screen shots of the game they're talking about, and it's beautiful. Colors everywhere. Variety of levels and environments. What the hell were they talking about?

I'm calling bullshit on this phobia of setting expectations for intelligent conversation for nerds. I wouldn't be satisfied in any other kind of conversation if people were acting like this, so why should I settle for it here? Why should YOU settle for it? I'm not saying every person should have a fucking college degree in debate, I'm saying people should articulate their thoughts better. I'm saying people should think before they speak. And to be sure to drive this point home, I'll give you some fucking examples of how I could be okay with someone calling a game >I< like a bad game, or saying that they don't like it.

Left 4 Dead 2 - Don't like it? I love this game, but I could see why. Reasonable complaints I've heard are people saying that they really preferred the cast of the first game better. Whatever happened to them? It's hard to say. People will tell me, "There's no story. Where's the story? What happened here? Why are things like this? What're we going to do about it?" I'll tell them that this isn't what the game was about, that the game is just intended to give a team of people a fun time fighting through zombies. Except I realize that I know this because I followed preview coverage, interviews, announcement, revealings at events. Most people didn't. All they see are characters with personalities that are never given a chance to develop and a world with hardly any context. How would they know to NOT expect more? Or some people will just say they're burned out on zombies at this point, or that they could never find a good team to play with and the AI would let them die too often.
Fair. Enough.

Red Dead Redemption - I fucking love this game, but there are plenty of reasons to NOT like it. First off, although the combat is improved from GTA IV, it's still not perfect. It's really floaty. The buttons aren't always as responsive as you'd like them to be. There are some weird ass glitches that can really pull out of the game. The multiplayer is a fun concept, but it boils down to who can get the jump on who first because everyone has a gigantic beacon constantly hovering over their character that say, "HAY LOOK THIS IS ANOTHER PLAYER AND HE'S HIDING BEHIND A ROCK OH NOES". If you don't like running around and just exploring or messing around in towns, then this game probably isn't for you. Aside from that, you basically just run from mission point to mission point over and over.

If people want to call these games crap, fine. ARE they crap? Christ, no. Crap is what comes out of someone's butt. These are not that. But if they say they hated the game, then they hated it. If we disagree, I'll want to hear why. I'd much rather hear these reasons, or anything specific that they can point to even if they're the only person in the world to ever experience this problem rather than, "It was just bad. It was just shit. The story was terrible. The mechanics are fail." It makes them sounds tuck up and arrogant. I can respect something I dislike or disagree so long as it's at least done WELL.

Way to get angry over something that isn't easily conveyed over bland text. Besides, for someone crying about how other people post on the internet and how they dislike games and why they dislike games, I wouldn't be surprised if you honestly did get upset that someone didn't agree with you perfectly about your own topic. Actually, you are right now so whatever, you're own reactions are proving my point to some degree since you're throwing a little fit over me not being psychic right now after I dared criticize your pointless topic.

Also you don't sound like a very competent human to me. Quite the opposite actually, you sound very egotistical. Quick to brand anyone who you don't personally agree with or approve of as a moron or any other negative strawman while only you and the elitist group you pick get to be in the competent few, while almost every post you make is full of generalizations and srawman arguments. Please point me to these mysterious people who can't criticize a game without contradicting themselves and just saying the entire thing is shit. You really love painting everyone but yourself as a group of mysterious retards who don't even seem like they could put their pants on in the morning without help. Hell, you even made up these 'problems' with this community just so you could have something to cry about and make yourself feel superior.

Just because everyone on the internet doesn't take the time to tell everyone else why bioware's latest bowel movement isn't the perfect tantalizing shade of puce to make them erotically aroused doesn't mean it's a problem. It means that most people didn't like the game enough to write out ten pointless paragraphs no one would read anyway. Everyone on the internet shouldn't have to conform to your fetishistic standards just because it gets your jollies a rockin'.

EDIT: Furthermore you don't seem to understand that things like "good" and "bad" are subjective and that there generally aren't objective standards for what makes a good or bad game.

I'm giving YOU shit because you start saying things like calling me an egotist, saying I only want to hear the opinions of those that are exactly in line with mine, and that I'm a terrible poster. If you'd read the initial post carefully the first time, we wouldn't have had that problem. I gave you another chance to go back and read, and even held your HAND through it, explaining EXACTLY what I meant. Did you ask nicely or humanely about it from that point, even if you didn't understand? No, you marched on with the stupid insults and did exactly what I was worried you would do. You were completely disrespectful from the get-go, and you continued to be so when I gave you another chance to go read and blatantly explained myself to you. How the hell else do you want me to treat you? How do you EXPECT me to treat you? You want to act like a dick and make an accusation rather than ask a question, then you can bet you're going to get treated like that.

And even now, after admitting I'm right and seeing what I'm saying, you continue on with it. If it makes you better to call me an egotist, buddy, then keep on keeping on. I called you a moron because you missed what was right in front of you and felt the need to be rude from the start over YOUR misunderstanding rather than just asking me about it. If anything, I think I'd call you the egotist. If I misunderstand someone, I generally give 'em a chance to explain themselves first. You, on the other hand? You just throw around insults and judgement until someone gets fed up enough to hit you with a wall of text.

I'd be really careful about asking that if I were you. If you want me to, I'll go back through the threads and repost some of the stupid things I was seeing that got me to type this in the first place. You can actually find it from folks if you go to any thread talking about a game and read the posts, but if you'd like me to hand hold you on this part next, I'll do it for you.

Side note: Of course "good" and "bad" are subjective. Again, you look down on me and treat me like somebody who doesn't know anything. Anyone can call anything good or bad. But do you know what the difference is between someone who's opinion has credibility and carries some weight, and those whose opinions people just laugh at? The difference is that one of them backs themselves up with valid reasons, and the other just babbles and babbles without any specific, substantial, or even relate-able reasons.

If you wanna jump back down to a civil level, that's cool with me. Only thing I'd ask of you is to read before you type, and if you're confused or put-off about something, give a guy the chance to explain himself first before you starting saying things.

 

[Casual Shinji]

To OP: Valid arguments, but I'd like to play the devil's advocate and counter your arguments in the post.

While not all video game stories suck, it is true that there's no good video game story. The reason is that video game stories are constrained by gameplay. A game must be entertaining/enjoyable or otherwise it's not a good game. While on the other hand a good story doesn't have to be entertaining/enjoyable. This inherent constrain of gaming limits the types of story that can work with games, which resulting a lack of good video game story.

There are a lot a great games I've played that were far from fun. Take the entire survival horror genre, for example.

A game doesn't need to be fun, it needs to be engaging. And storytelling in a game doesn't always need to be done through dialoge and cutscenes; a good developer knows how to let the environment and gameplay tell a good chunk of it.

 

[Casual Shinji]

You see, now this is a legitimate complaint. Now, dude I'm quoting, I have a question for you. What is your threshold on change? Like take the new kirby game for instance. Do you support that even though it throws out all the years of refinement and evolution from previous kirby games in favor of spastic mutation for the sake of just utter random change? Or do you have no limit on what kind of change is to be heralded as good?

You're not dissing Kirdy's Epic Yarn, are ya? That game looks freaking awesome!

 

[Naota_391]

My main two problems with the gaming community is the sheer sense of entitlement and tendency to burn like the flames of Isengard whenever a developer tries something different since they clearly know better than the developer 100% of the time, often before they even bother finding out what it's about or why they're doing it (see TF2 Microtransactions and Dante's redesign). You don't see this in any other medium. If a respected film director tries making a different type of film, they'll at least be congratulated for trying and people will trust that whatever they make will at least be halfway enjoyable. If a respected author tries writing a different type of book, people will trust that the author will at least try making something halfway decent out of it. Why? Because they've proven themselves. People trust them, and they if the result is slightly different to what they wanted, they'll accept that they aren't made just for them.

But for games? Suddenly the gamers are the ones that know best. I'd write more, but I'm tired.

TF2 has microtransactions...? That seems like an obvious fit I never thought of. Humm...

I totally get what you're saying, and I agree with you, but I think on some issues people have a bit more of a reason to speak out. For example, I don't think many people are saying the new DMC game is going to be crap. I mean, it really could've only gotten better over the years, right? The moves he was doing looked cool, and I think everyone knows what to expect from a DMC game at this point and they're happy with that.

Their issue is the aesthetic. It's not that it's a new Dante, or that he's insane, it's that he looks like an incredibly generic character from a pop-culture scene MOST gamers actively make fun of. IT seems way out of place. He looks like Justin Bieber, Edward from Twilight, and bad-boy from Hot Topic all rolled into one. It's a cross-over of interests that don't quite make sense. At least not from where I'm standing. I won't say that Dante has EVER been a great, or even respectable character, before, but I also can't say that I'm at all comfortable with this new guy they've thrown out.

 

[chinangel]

Bobby Kotick and Project ten dollar. They aren't really part of the gaming community (Bobby Kotick especially) but i still consider them relevant.