What is truly wrong with gaming

[Konaerix]

Well mate, as you said, it isn't perfect. It never will be. There will always be something wrong with gaming or any kind of entertainment worth it's salt.
However, we've gotten to a point where it is piss easy to find games that fit a certain age demographic, and so, have a wide selection to chose from.
I say ignore what you don't like, and focus on the game that entertain YOU.
The sooner you do that, the happier you will be.
Nothing you do or say will make the things that you dislike or don't care for disappear.

 

[Iron Mal]

Hello fellow Escapists, first time poster, long time fan of the site, and I figure, "What better way to start ones forum history then with a post that is likely to nab some attetion?"

Allow me to welcome you to the Escapist then, tread carefully lest you awaken a raging self-proclaimed smart-arse.

As i see it, there is one major thing wrong with gaming, gamers.

Yes you read that right, gamers.

Well we are a large part of gaming so it's fair to assume that with any probems we have down the line that we're involved in it to a certain extent.

Gamers commonnly are entitled, spoil, crybaby, pigheaded, stubborn, egotistically, and just plain think there right even when there wrong.

Correction, some gamers are entitled, spoilt, crybaby, pigheaded, stubborn, egotistical and self-rightious.

Yeah, there are a lot of arseholes out there among the gamer public but this can be said for just about any group or demographic.

For example, my girlfriend absolutely loves reading (she's probably read more than one hundred books over the last year, something I actually admire her for being able to do and wish I was capable of) and yet she has talked to me in the past about her frustrations with other bookworms and, in particular, certain authors or books.

No medium or group is immune to having it's black sheep and bad apples, gaming included.

Of course this isn't the only thing wrong, but it is really really big, and gaming will not progress unless we better oursevles.

Why not?

We've made tonnes of progress throughout gaming's history with these people still hanging onto us so why are they now suddenly a major problem?

Fans, haters, ragers, trollers, you get the point, are really not good for gaming, on the inside or outside, on the outside, it makes us look like childern you have grown up, but haven't matured. On the inside, well you see the result on any given gaming forum thoughout the day.

Have you never seen Twi-hards? Or rock-snobs? Gangsta wannabes? Self-proclaimed movie critics?

Every medium has it's problem people, ours just seem bigger because we actually have to deal with ours on a regular basis.

Now i could go on and on about what needs to be fixed, but i rather just sum it up like this: We need to learn how to be tolerant of others, gamers or otherwise, we also need to be tolerant of games themsevles.

That's true, we do need to be more tolerant of others.

This is presently something that the entirety of the human population is dealing with right now (despite all the progress we've made) so I'd say that we gamers are about on par with everyone else regarding that.

I shall say it myself, i dislike cod because I find it bland and boring, but to people who love the game, go ahead play it, your not affecting me. See thats i am saying don't bash someone because they do not like a game you like and like you hate, unless you live with them, accept they choice in gameign and hopefully there accept yours. treat them like you would want to be treated.

The only problem with wanting everyone to follow the 'Golden Rule' is not everyone is co-operative or even just plain nice enough to be considerate of others enough to be able to facilitate that.

That's not unique to gaming, that's just a problem with people in general.

Fans is more thorny, but i shall say this, fans, stop being entitled brats who think because a game has changed its worse.

So fans, when a games changes, don't fight, embrace it, or at least accept it.

True, gmes changing isn't always a bad thing but then there are the few times when it is (I for one don't really think that Red Faction translated all that well into the third person and we all know the lamented tale of Sonic going 3D) so sometimes the whiners and ragers do have a point.

As for what I believe is wrong with gaming at the moment, my biggest problem would have to be the sheer excess negativiity that lots of people seem to have these days, I'm normally a pessimistic and cynical person so I'm partial to the odd bout of grumbling and complaining about things I don't like but could we please lighten up and change our tune to something besides 'everything sucks'?

 

[Something Amyss]

What's wrong with gaming? Actually, consumers are a pretty big portion of it, I think. We have millions upon millions of fanboys who will troll the internet for morsels hinting at the next iteration of a "AAA" title like Modern Warfare 3, who will rabidly defend any flaw like Archie Bunker defending segregation, and who are guaranteed money.

There is no incentive to trying anything new, when the business model that exists borders on flawless. Release a new iteration of fanboy bait #263, and profit.

Why would any sensible company try anything different? Games are expensive to make and produce. There's a lot of risk in something creative or different. The latest shooter clone or whatever is a much safer bet.

 

[Lenin211]

I figured that I might as well respond

Hello fellow Escapists, first time poster, long time fan of the site, and I figure, "What better way to start ones forum history then with a post that is likely to nab some attetion?"

Well I shall say what i think is truly wrong with gaming, as i see it, if you think i am wrong, go ahead, think so, just read it is all I care, and maybe some posts.

As i see it, there is one major thing wrong with gaming, gamers.

Yes you read that right, gamers.

Gamers commonnly are entitled, spoil, crybaby, pigheaded, stubborn, egotistically, and just plain think there right even when there wrong.

This is common across many media, have you ever seen a Star wars fanboy rage about how the prequels are the worst thing ever? Or even a Mac lover who dispises PCs and will give you many ill-informed reasons for their superiority. Your argument lacks uniqueness.

Of course this isn't the only thing wrong, but it is really really big, and gaming will not progress unless we better oursevles.

Why can't we progress? Other media have. Empirical evidence proves that there is no reason that we can't go on hating people that disagree with our opinions.

Fans, haters, ragers, trollers, you get the point, are really not good for gaming, on the inside or outside, on the outside, it makes us look like childern you have grown up, but haven't matured. On the inside, well you see the result on any given gaming forum thoughout the day.

Why would making us look like children, if it in fact does so, be a bad thing? You give no impact to this argument.

Now i could go on and on about what needs to be fixed, but i rather just sum it up like this: We need to learn how to be tolerant of others, gamers or otherwise, we also need to be tolerant of games themsevles.

Once again, why do we need to be tolerant? Star Wars fanboys are not tolerant and the medium of film gets along just fine.

You know what i talking about, fans defending or basing what they love or don't love.

I shall say it myself, i dislike cod because I find it bland and boring, but to people who love the game, go ahead play it, your not affecting me. See thats i am saying don't bash someone because they do not like a game you like and like you hate, unless you live with them, accept they choice in gameign and hopefully there accept yours. treat them like you would want to be treated.

You begin to discuss Call of Duty in this paragraph and your point is lost. Why can't we have different opinions or tastes in games and defend those opinions?

Fans is more thorny, but i shall say this, fans, stop being entitled brats who think because a game has changed its worse. Like before i shall use an example. Mass effect 2 and Mass effect, i love both games, but i find Mass Effect 2 better in a few ways, the combat, charaters, and story. In mass effect 1 the combat started out a bit like mass effect 2, cover based shooting, but by mid game you would become a walking tank, 2 or 3 shoting most foes, whereas mass effects 2 combat, though less vaired, at less didn't become a cakewalk haflway though the game. Of the squad, i only loved tali and wrex, once i have gotten them I used no one else, i would have even left both ashly and kadien on virmire if I had the chance. Meanwhile in mass effect 2, i love kasumi, Mordin, grunt, tali, legion, and Samara, so the characters would more varied, and also even the poster ones, (thane and Miranda) were better then they Mass Effect 1 counterparts. The story is were most of you are going like "wtf your wrong mass effect 1 story is way better" That is partly correct, mass effect 2 suffers from being the middle of a 3 part series. However i find one part of the game rather effected in telling the true theat of the collectors and reapers, and what depths the reapers will sink to to finish their goals. When you learn of happened to last few Potheans, its rather shocking, i mean was it enough for your race to reduced to 5% of population, and then that last bit gets turned into little more then slaves, lsoing all their soul to be little more then a scouting force for the reapers, with no memory of their past lives? The only thing that could be worse is to have you race crushed, then revive as undead as far as I can think. Then seeing the inside of the collector is big enough to fit every human in the Milky way? and this is just what the reapers' call a scouting force? Mass effect 2 in its own way tells us about what reapers will do to get their goals done, and you gamers flat out don't see it? but other then that, is suffer " I am the middle part of a 3 part series, thats why".

You manage to completely lose your message in this text wall of confusing Mass Effect references. Why does this matter in regard to your original argument?

So fans, when a games changes, don't fight, embrace it, or at least accept it.

If the new Hitman game was set to be a First person shooter in the middle east, why could I not point out that this is straying from what made the series so unique and fun? Should I have to say that this iteration would be superior? that seems to be what your claim here is.

And that's all I shall right, for now, lets see what happens yes?

That is it from me, feel free to respond.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

I think the problem with gamers is that we think we're above the... "others". Lets compare Gamers to Football Fans.

They root for their favorite team
We root for our favorite Game/Company/OS/Console, etc.

They get angry when the players change, people quit, teams are sold, or the coach makes what they see as a fatal mistake. Not to mention dedicating their time and lives to a team only to watch them suck.

We get angry when a developer changes the game, games are sold to another company, game that took years to release only to end up in bitter disappointment, or worse the game dies in production.

We both fight and bicker at each other to the point of shouting out death threats. I find the creation threads of "Xbox vs PS3", "PC vs Console" very similar to a few arguments I've observed with rival football fans.

They spray paint their bodies and put on jerseys. Then act out like their heros. (Grunting, yelling, insert football manliness here)

We spray paint our bodies, put on costumes, imitate our heros. (Get into sword fights, shout out I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite ______________ on the ___________. Etc.

Now, I may of mistaken this comparison. I admit I am a gamer, not a sports fan, but I like to think I'm good at observation. I grew up in a football home after all. My point I'm trying to get across is that the same problem with gamers is the same problem with anything else that can be even remotely competitive. Perhaps its just human nature to always try to top one another. To always want more than we can have. To confuse our vivid imaginations, with the hard reality of what is possibly in this digital age.

 

[Toriver]

I agree with the OP that gamers have an attitude/image problem:
*Littering even serious arguments with completely inappropriate comments and profanity, making it difficult for others to take anything we say seriously
*Feigning "maturity" by throwing M-rated levels of gratuitous blood, violence and TnA into simple power fantasies and claiming they should be taken seriously as works of art
*Defending kids playing those M-rated power fantasies and bitching out any and all organizations meant to inform parents about games for "not getting it"
*Being far too reactionary, going so far as to defend ridiculous things in order for the gaming community, such that it is, to avoid taking any responsibility for anything
*encouraging unhealthy levels of gaming and denying the problem of unhealthy gaming: I do enjoy games, but going outside and getting some exercise and a social life outside gaming is a good thing, too
*alienating differing opinions from the majority of gamers on completely unrelated matters: you know what I'm talking about. That BS has to stop. Nobody should have to pick between calling themselves those things or a gamer.

On the industry side:
*ignoring the ESRB in choosing a target audience for advertising: mostly EA is guilty of this, but other companies have done it too
*on-disk day-one DLC: we paid for the disk and what's on it. Give us what we paid for without charging us another limb.
*devs and publishers whining over used game sales
*while we're at it, the idea devs have that we own the physical disk but not the game on it: outside lawyer-land, we call that a cop-out argument. The characters and world may be your IP, but the GAME is ours.

 

[The Pinray]

Bit hard to read that post. May want to edit it some for clarity?

Anyway, what bothers me the most is elitists. Because at the end of the day, these are games. It's about having fun.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Hello fellow Escapists, first time poster, long time fan of the site, and I figure, "What better way to start ones forum history then with a post that is likely to nab some attetion?"

Well I shall say what i think is truly wrong with gaming, as i see it, if you think i am wrong, go ahead, think so, just read it is all I care, and maybe some posts.

As i see it, there is one major thing wrong with gaming, gamers.

Yes you read that right, gamers.

Gamers commonnly are entitled, spoil, crybaby, pigheaded, stubborn, egotistically, and just plain think there right even when there wrong.

Of course this isn't the only thing wrong, but it is really really big, and gaming will not progress unless we better oursevles.

Gamers are only the problem in the sense that most are all too willing to pay good money for crap. So many publishers figure, why not release some overhyped crap, and it should sell well. And it works. Hell, many gamers will pay (at least $5 but many pay for it in full) for this overhyped crap months in advance of anyone getting the game and actually playing it.
Gamers are only the problem in the sense that many are gullible enough to believe that if they don?t put at least $5 down on a game long before they get it, they wont be able to buy it anywhere. They?ve also been convinced by the same corporation that a $2 savings on a used game is perfectly reasonable.
Gamers are only the problem in the sense that many overuse the word entitled and I don?t think they know what it means. Here?s an example of ?entitled? being used correctly: After paying $60 for a game, you should be ?entitled? to a finished product that works properly and will entertain you for a long time.
Gamers are only the problem in the sense that many are likely to buy a machine that has a 50/50 chance of bricking, then when it does brick, they?ll buy another one while waiting for the original to be fixed/replaced.
Gamers are only the problem in the sense that many are willing to buy every crappy overpriced piece of dlc which only encourages publishers to slice up games into more and more parts so they can sell it all separately later.
Gamers are only the problem in the sense that some of them would rather defend their corporate overlords rather than try and make these companies produce quality products again.
Going through this list, it seems that the only real problem with gamers is that they are too trusting and willing to believe that the industry is only there to entertain them when it?s mostly there to get as much money out of them as it possibly can. If gamers were more savvy consumers we would have games that have plenty of content playable at launch without punching in codes, we would have consoles that are both built well AND get decent support rather than having to choose between the two, we would have an easier time finding used games that are more than $5 cheaper than a new copy, and multiplatform games would actually be just as good (or bad) on every platform.

So gamers are far from the biggest problem. They are just enablers: allowing the problem to get worse. The real problem are the people taking advantage of them.

 

[Orks da best]

ok, I did not correct my post, as yall have said 50 billion times, but i am thankfull that some people have gotten the point.

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

I'm guessing that the way the industry is, many publishers are not too keen on taking risks or trying something new. Instead, we are left with games being developed with similar gameplay/mechanics/design, re-releasing old titles from their previous gen console in HD, or giving indie developers a chance (which is not bad, but the quality is missing to an understandable degree).

The industry isn't sure if the FPS franchise will continue to flourish, if story-driven games will begin to truly take flight, if more money should be put into HD graphics, 3-D technology, or existing/new peripherals, or if they should spend the extra money & effort to import games to a more worldwide gaming community (though many gamers are interested in buying their titles).

For the most part, we can continue to support the industry by buying games we enjoy, provide the appropriate feedback for further development of games, and display an interest in future installments of a series/title we want to see.

 

[Hop-along Nussbaum]

I understand what you're saying, but disagree. Here's why.

First, a game is a product. Made for a specific audience. Gamers. And over the years, gamers have come to expect a certain level of quality, while only a few companies have consistently provided it. Anyway, make a good product, and people will buy it. If it's good, they'll even sing it's praises (witness all the anticipation regarding Skyrim).

Second, and most importantly, gamers cannot be the real problem because if you take away the games, gamers will move on. But if you take away the gamers, the industry will crumble and fail.

The game developers, well some of them anyway, figure that they can just program a shitty game and put it out, and a few thousand schmucks will pay for it and allow them to make some money.

Truly innovative and evolving game developers (Bethesda, Blizzard, BioWare, among others) have put in the serious time, effort and resources and provided quality products that gamers around the world have come to expect. And that effort has made them the top competitors in the game.

Game companies need gamers. Gamers do not necessarily need the games.

 

[aeriesyka]

Honestly, before crowning yourself the righteous king of gaming and bashing many players, I'd go through your post and correct the spelling and grammar.

After you've done that; we can talk.

Gaming is like any subjective area. Art, music, literature can all be seen as a masterpiece to one and trash to another, and as well as you may defend your given piece you can never force someone else to love it, no matter why. I understand that it's sometimes hard to explain to someone that dislike's what you like why they should enjoy it as much as you, just as it's hard to accept that something you treasure is someone else's trash.

I may not enjoy CoD, as I prefer games with a more unique feel (usually sci-fi or fantasy) then a realistic representation, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to play with my friends when they feel like it. I can appreciate it's value, even though it's not my taste.

Now I know you're arguing "gamer's attitude" and the bashing, immature behavior and fits people have, but isn't that what you're doing right now? If you're so "over" all that, then why do you feel the need to point a finger at it?

Try to go in any artistic forum and try to tell people to stop bickering over what they think is best. It will never happen. People feel the need to share their opinions and defend them, which is exactly why you're posting. It's true that sometimes it just comes out as whining and blind arguing, but that's easy to ignore if it gets so under your skin.

What's wrong with gaming isn't gamers; it's people like you that enjoy stirring shit and pointing fingers.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Ok, for one; Trollers, ragers and haters are a very small part of the gaming community, most of us are sophisticated enough to not act like animals, not all gamers are pricks.
Also, yea, fans may get annoying sometimes, but they're not really an issue, because they keep to themselves(most of the time).
I for one, am an AC, Mass Effect, Prince of Persia and Dragon Age fan, but I don't go around trolling at people who dislike those games, as I believe everyone is entitled to an opinion.

 

[mezorin]

I agree in point with the OP, but a small percentage of the forum goers are the people he's describing. For every guy who rages and hates on say "Call of Duty: Black Ops" there are at least ten people who bought the game and are generally happy with it. I think this problem is blown quite a bit out of proportion by noisy forum goers and such, and I'm sure the game statistics will back me up on this point.


To all the ragers out there: honestly guys, chill the fuck out. Seriously. These are electronic video games being "made wrong", not your mother getting torn apart by wolves released by Dick Chenney. Perspective people. Gaming is objectively as good as it has ever been, with a lot of big names competing hard for your time and money. This means you have more options than ever before to buy stuff that suits your gaming needs. If Mega Bland Brown Shooter 2011 is bothering you, go buy a fun little indie title on Steam for 10 bucks instead and amuse yourself with it!


Here's also a bit of Zen wisdom:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0la5DBtOVNI

 

[Legion IV]

I says Permanent Death, We need it.


More games should have a more permanent form of dying for characters so players will actually fear Danger in any shape or form, instead of laughing at it.


Imagine all those times your data got wiped because of a bug, Weren't you afraid of that bug more so then any enemy in the game.


Gamers need this fear in their lives.

Oh god thank you! THIS WE NEED THIS. Oh man am sure you played fire emblem that was heart wrenching. Shout outs to all those who played fire emblem legate and when someone died you let it happen.

Also the Game Deadly Dozen. Squad based world war 2 game, you picked 4 characters (thats including your character) out of 12. If one dies HES GONE. There you have 12 men to beat this pretty long INCREDIBLY hard game.

I cannot describe how sad it was when one died and you moved on, every mission briefing that characters portrait had a cross over it just chills. You got to know these guys and the constant fear of permanent death was insanely terrifying.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

You know, the irony of this debate is that it's NOT a problem. The ragers and whiners are a fraction of a percent of gamers (yeah I'm underselling you lot).

The rest of us are content, though we all have different tastes and if there's one thing people have a problem with is accepting that fact.

 

[6SteW6]

The problem with gaming is that people keep overreacting about silly stuff like this. In games as in society there are good, moral, upstanding people and then there are loudmouthed pricks that ruin it for everyone else. And in Gaming as in society, the loudmouthed pricks are the ones most often heard. One thing about gaming that doesn't feature into society is there is a block button*. If idiots ruin the gaming experience for you use it. Or better yet, find friends who aren't idiots and play with them.

I couldn't read the rest of the point you were trying to make I made it two sentences in to your Mass effect 2 thingy and gave up. But I did get to the part about games changing and all I can say is, Games change, life changes, deal with it. You are the master of your own domain, if a game no longer seems appealing due to too many changes then take it back and spend your money on something you do enjoy. Or hell save your money and play the regular unchanged version of the game. Things change either to make better, appeal to a larger demographic or because the original sucked it happens!

The only thing I truly see wrong with gaming is too much choice, variety and freedom there hasn't been a better time to be a gamer. I deeply enjoy gaming both online and off and, yes as I said there are idiots online but there's easy ways to deal with them. It doesn't ruin my overall experience at all.

*There is a block button in the real world too most commonly known as 'A punch to the mouth' The reason it has been omitted from the above comment is that, whilst being ultimately more satisfying than blocking someone on a videogame it has many ramifications. Usually we are not in a position to use 'Punch to the mouth' as the aforementioned loudmouth prick is usually a boss, politician, wife, person who is bigger than you. Used in the wrong setting ?Punch to the mouth? can lead to seriously bodily harm, incarceration or death. Again, whilst a 'punch to the mouth' can and will shut up most Loudmouth pricks it should be used with the utmost care.

 

[Waffle_Man]

If there is a problem with gaming, it's simultaneously that the entire medium seems to focus entirely on a very limited range of the human condition and that people seem to take it into their heads that games can somehow be forced to be artistic rather than developing as art gradually.

Don't get me wrong, I love the games that are available to me today, and some games do begin to touch hints of brilliance, but anytime I want to discuss how games are able to form a dialogue in a way that isn't possible for any other medium, it's always using single examples from assorted games, or talking about what a game was trying to do. Think about all of the games that we hold up as paragons of the medium as an art form. Whether a really long progression or shooting, punching, or stabbing people in the face with bits of ham handed angst or convoluted conspiracy nonsense in between, or a surrealist salad that was created entirely on the fly with little coherency, games can almost always be summed up as a response to the question "you know would be cool?" On the rare occasion that a game does manage to go beyond such a question, it's usually a small part of the game that is in no way the driving force of the series. Before you leap up and say "moral choice," the problem is that moral choices in games are almost always an abstract thought experiment or essentially an aesthetic option. Rarely does a game ask a player what matters to them, and then force the player to deal with the total results of their decisions.

On the flip side, you have the crowd that has accepted the criticism above already, but has decided to interpret it in an incredibly myopic way. Id est, it's the group of people who try to find every last game that bears even a passing resemblance to art and proceed to lavish it with praise as though it's the second coming of christ. Does a game happen to have a character with a tragic back story that has little to know bearing on the actual game play apart from an occasional bit of angst? Then it's obviously a profound exploration into darker parts of human nature. Does a game force you to make a binary decision between being a sane/normal human being and a complete psychopath? It must totally be an in depth exploration into the complexities of morality. Have a comic book villain with a completely asinine evil plan and a sexy accent and set of mannerisms? It's totally a deep character portrait. Yeah, I realize that these might be verging on straw man arguments, and I haven't given any specific examples (something I would probably tear this post a new one for if I hadn't posted it myself), but the point stands.

Why does this bother my so? It's because if we try to limit what games can be to what we have today, I'm afraid that we're setting the bar too low. I have no doubt the games will produce works of art that challenge all of our assumptions and preconceptions, but it won't be because a bunch of fanatics decided to spew outright propaganda about the subject of their lust. Games don't need a Citizen Cain, games need a game good enough that people don't need to compare it to other works of art to give it legitimacy.