| Dan Felder |
|
|
"Then they finished the game — and by gum, some vocal people sure hated that ending.
So BioWare read the vitriolic comments, listened to the petitions, and made a new ending that tried to address some of these concerns. And guess what? The haters still hated it. We, collectively, have created a game community that thrives on hate, and sometimes there's not much you can do but grow thicker skin." This seems like a colossal misdiagnosis. People begged for DNF to come out for a very long time and when it finally did... People still hated it. Does this mean we've created a community that thrives on hate, or does it mean there were just genuine mistakes made? Whether we reward negative attention or not - the bioware case seems like a massive misdiagnosis. |
|
|
| Jeremie Sinic |
|
I want to believe this is not entirely true (that gamers only open their mouth to hate on games). I keep repeating to everyone around me how I love Fieldrunners 2 on iOS as it stands out as one of the very few recent games on the App Store with NO in-app purchase.
But certainly when people pay 65 euros ($82, the basic price for a new Xbox360 in France) for a new game, they get angry more easily, while the pricing of most indie games calls for more leniency. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| Maria Jayne |
|
|
It's not the industry, it's human nature, news reporters and papers have been doing this for years. We like reading about negative things, maybe because it reminds us our lives aren't so bad, maybe because we can collectively be part of the "popular mob". It takes something of epic positivity such as the Olympics or a famous wedding etc to even reach a possibility of shoving that negative story off the front page every day.
The internet is relatively anonymous, people have the freedom to be assholes and when there is no reason to keep that behaviour in check, people often want to be assholes. The guy who said "I'm glad someone close to you died" probably stopped thinking about that comment and the potential impact it would have within 5 minutes of saying it. He never met the person he said it to, maybe he has never experienced the death of someone he knew, no doubt the disconnect between the screen and the human behind it, simply didn't even register to the poster. As you rightly say, far more people now have a voice and a podium on which to use it, due to the internet. Where as before people would express dissatisfaction within their own communities of friends now they can get together globaly. I don't nessecarily believe more people are unhappy then before (although what makes them unhappy is obviously becoming more trivial as the comfort of life evolves), I tend to believe it's simply easier to find that out now. It's also easier to get behind the really angry person and say "yeah me too!" then it is to express your own opinion, because after 300 pages of negativity on a forum, what hope is there that your 301st opinion will be read anyway? Perhaps, if there is a flaw in the system, it's that the voices on the internet haven't earned them, therfore they don't put any value in having them. If you can't appreciate what it's like to have no way to express an opinion, how can you ever respect the reader when you do? |
|
|
| Michael Rooney |
|
It's important to listen to the hate, but I agree that it's often too successful (ME3 being the perfect example). I do think, however, that being overly positive can be just as detrimental. The indie game community is generally one where I think people get away with poor choices because it's too supportive.
I think a better goal would be to generally accept honest constructive criticism and pay less attention to blindly supportive or blindly hateful opinions. |
|
|
| E McNeill |
|
|
You're right that the opposite of love is not hate but apathy. The haters are invested, and perhaps that's an opportunity, at least.
As for the indie scene, although the developers tend to be supportive of each other (excepting some scene drama), I don't think that most players are especially forgiving. I've heard a lot of indies talk about how they're hit hard by negative comments, and it always seems like they get hammered any time they get thrust into the mainstream (see the comments on Greenlight, or Fez in IG:TM). An insular bubble of support can be helpful or even necessary at times, but it's not the same thing as a wide culture of positivity. |
|
|
| Joe Zachery |
|
|
If you been on the internet long enough your realize there are only two ways to behave. Express your love for a gaming company, game or character then there is the total opposite of that. For example "Nintendo" That one word have some of you feeling good, and the other half ready to fight.
|
|
|
| A W |
|
|
Umm. Excuse me, but Bioware existed before Mass Effect and it was not the first time they have been called out for shenanigans by the internet. Maybe by a community they created on the internet, but not the first time. Just go back to KOTOR 2 and you will see what I mean. Maybe cooperate culture should remember that their customers are not their personal friends, and that these consumers may be only doing something because its popular with their circle of friends and not because they love the entity as a company. There maybe some die hard fans, but they are not friends either. I guess I'm saying it nothing to take to heart, and its best not to try to share human moments with people you don't know unless your not going to take it personally how they react.
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| Paul Berry |
|
"Then they finished the game — and by gum, some vocal people sure hated that ending."
If your moral decisions in an RPG don't drastically affect the ending of the game, then you are playing a fatally flawed RPG. Expect an outcry if logic flies out the airlock at the denouement of the game. Bethesda had a similar issue with Fallout 3: by the end of the game, you could have a super mutant, robot, or ghoul henchman who all could laugh in the face of radiation. In the vanilla game, they would point blank refuse to take your place in the radioactive death chamber. Bethesda wanted The Road's "thematic symmetry", i.e. your character died like your character's parents did for the greater good. Google "fallout 3 original ending" and you'll see how well that went over... Bethesda eventually fixed that logic lapse & released Broken Steel as DLC. Your follower went in for you, sparing your life. That act on Bethesda's part smoothed things over. "So BioWare read the vitriolic comments, listened to the petitions, and made a new ending that tried to address some of these concerns. And guess what? The haters still hated it. We, collectively, have created a game community that thrives on hate, and sometimes there's not much you can do but grow thicker skin." Tell you what, release a game that's pretty good right up until the ending. Make the ending ignores all previous character actions. Have it make very little sense at all. Then, arrogantly hide behind "Games R Art! I am an Artist! How dare you tell me what to do!". See what happens to your future sales. In conclusion, there's lots of competition out there for my hard earned dollars. Watching Bioware go the way of Ion Storm, Interplay, or GT Interactive Software would bring me a great deal of schadenfreude. |
|
|
| Jeremy Alessi |
|
|
In general people need to take things down a few notches. There is always a person on the other end of the comments we leave online and it does hurt when someone says mean things about the work you've done. Yes, you've got to have a tough skin and be able to laugh off the comments calling for your death or torture because someone didn't enjoy something you made but as a society we should also ask others to open their minds and see that the negativity (especially the really mean stuff) is uncalled for.
|
|
|
| Kenneth Wesley |
|
In regards to ME3's ending, there proved a point where people disappointed with the ending forced Bioware and EA to critically look at their ending and try to re-do it. There's tons of negativity around but all negativity is not whining. Some negativity can help look at things objectively and see where possible flaws lie. If all video games and everything related to it were just effusively praised, then the Wii U would have no need for an online network or HD capabilities.
There is difference between someone's own disinterest as true negative and a prevalent problem with some facts backing up that problem. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| Chris OKeefe |
|
I think this take on the issue is flawed in a number of ways. First of all, although it's true that anyone who is creating art for mass consumption needs to have a thick skin, it is wrong to assume that public reaction is something which can be safely ignored. There are many reasons why the human psyche reacts to criticism and negativity the way that it does. But ultimately the 'grain of truth' or at least 'perceived grain of truth' rule applies; we are most sensitive about the things that we fear might be true. And while it's true that in a lot of cases, anger is over relatively trivial things (like a character's design change), it is interesting (to me) that you chose to use Mass Effect 3's ending as an example. Because to me, as a consumer admittedly, an ending to a trilogy is perhaps the most important part of the experience.
I hate to turn this into a debate about whether or not the 'hate' that was shown to Bioware over their ending design was legitimate, so I won't go into detail as to why I think that it was. Suffice to say, I was never a huge ME fan, I never cared more about the game than what was required to play through the trilogy, and I can safely say that by any standard I can think of, it had a badly designed, nonsensical, unrewarding ending. That is my opinion. But it is beside the point. Instead, I'd like to point out a couple of things. It is true that people who are invested in something are more likely to show strong, reactive emotions when you change something or break something. That is simply a fact that everyone should be comfortable with; we've all been a little too invested in something before, and anyone with a modicum of self-awareness would recognize that. However: when there is anger about something you have done, it is the height of arrogance to assume that this is simply a secret sign of success. A good game can include bad decisions. And it is alright to say, you know what, overall people love the game but the diehard fans didn't like X or Y about it. We can live with that. But there is such a thing as 'objectively bad.' It is possible to make a poor design decision that sours an entire experience. This is taken for granted when it's simply a poorly designed game mechanic; we've seen it over and over, when a beautiful(ly ugly) narrative like Spec Ops: The Line is marred by poor cover mechanics, nobody circles the wagons to defend their design decisions. We can be constructive about what could have been done better/differently to improve the game as a whole. However, when we start talking about story and narrative decisions, people start to circle the wagons when it comes under fire. Two points here: 1) It is possible to ruin the experience of a game with a particularly bad narrative. And in the case of ME3, it is possible to sour the experience of an entire trilogy with a particularly bad ending. It is, after all, the last note of the story that players leave on. I would make this analogy; if you go to a friend's house for a party, and 95% of the party is great and you have a good time, but the last 5% is spent holding your friend's hair as they vomit repeatedly into a potted plant, then most people will not come away with a great impression of the evening. It's just human nature to put an emphasis on the last thing they experienced. It's called the recency effect (as opposed to the primacy effect) and it's first year psychology stuff. 2) Can you imagine if the movie industry or literature behaved this way? Movies and books are always critiqued on their narratives, along with acting and effects, etc. Although the problems inherent in designing games are twofold in that a developer needs to present a story that is both well written and entertaining to actually play, this is still (largely) an industry in which we tell and experience stories. This element is important, and it is difficult to take the 'games as an artform' seriously when the best advice the industry has for story criticism is 'no no no, they really love your game, just ignore it.' |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Steven Christian |
|
|
Sensational/Negative news always garners more attention and consequently gets more press. It's the same on TV and in the paper..
|
|
|
More: Console/PC, Social/Online, Smartphone/Tablet, Indie, Production, Business/Marketing, Exclusive