Do you ever get the feeling that Gamers these days dont want to enjoy games?
- Thread starter Sniper_Zegai
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I would refine the title somewhat, to "Do you ever get the feeling that gamers these days don't want you to enjoy games they themselves don't enjoy."
And I'd answer "Yes". Fanboi-ism looks to be at dizzying heights right now... dunno how much of that is nostalgia, though.
-- Steve
And I'd answer "Yes". Fanboi-ism looks to be at dizzying heights right now... dunno how much of that is nostalgia, though.
-- Steve
Well it looks like everyone agrees....with me, holy shit.
So to quote Yahtzee on this.
"Nobody likes me when Im being nice to a game, so let me get the praise out of the way first"
Oh well, I guess I'll just have to resign myself to being on of the stupid masses and enjoy all my games.
So to quote Yahtzee on this.
"Nobody likes me when Im being nice to a game, so let me get the praise out of the way first"
Oh well, I guess I'll just have to resign myself to being on of the stupid masses and enjoy all my games.
It's a combination of things. Blogging and youtube has replaced forums. This gives voice to a lot of people who have no journalistic experience, and more importantly journalist's ethic. Slamming a game just for the attention is much easier than getting people to listen to your "fair and balanced" review.
It's only a real problem if you really enjoy a game, have lots of fun with it, only to be told that it's crap and you're an idiot for liking it when you bring it up for discussion. Like when people mention that they really enjoyed Halo 3. They're either dismissed as fanboys or fools by the "real gamers".
It's not that I don't want to enjoy video games, it's the fact that I only play/buy games I know I'll love or the ones that pique my interest. Games that don't catch me I usually ignore.
It was a tuff lesson for me. I had to get used to the fact that nobody I knew liked the same games as me. For a while I just figured they were all pretentious. But I came to grips with the fact that: There are so many ppl in the world, and Everyone is different.
I think Super Mario Sunshine is the best in the series, yet I've heard only the opposite. My moral to this story is; Don't give out advive. Reporting is better than Journalism.
I think Super Mario Sunshine is the best in the series, yet I've heard only the opposite. My moral to this story is; Don't give out advive. Reporting is better than Journalism.
Disclaimer: This is only my first post in this forum and I'm practically asking for it in such a thread but as I'm not native speaker, there is always a chance I express something the wrong way so, please, bear with me, if only just this once. Plus I work as a game journalist (which in this case may or may not be a good thing).
I've already read quite valid points but I get the feeling it's impossible to simplify this whole negativity lust (?) as a trend or phenomenon.
For example, I too believe we live in a rather cynic and pessimistic but I 'm not sure this plays a big role when bashing a game in a review. When was the last time you met a professional critic that wasn't cynical? I don't think I've ever met one, incuding myself. The truth is, as with anything else commercial, there are only a few good games in the thousands that somehow find their way to retail each year. I think it's only natural.
The problem in the case of a journalist is that he/she has to play a boatload of mediocre games, before a good one shows up and the whole process can be a little disheartening.
What's more I think what Cheeze Pavilion asks for in a review is impossible to give. You want to know what you may like while, the way I see it, I can only TRY to provide you with what I believe it's good. In my opinion, what's good and what's fun can be two totally different things. I myself have enjoyed games I knew that weren't any good for obvious reasons. I enjoyed them besides knowing that if certain things were remedied, I'd enjoye the game that much more. In the end, I did enjoy the game, but I marked it down.
I realize what the fault in my logic is: I assume I can tell which game is good, regardless of how much fun I might have playing it. And that is exactly what (believe it or not) eats me up every time. But how can a gamer see through me and what I write? I'm afraid there's only one way. In the end the gamer, reader etc. has to participate more in the process. What I mean is that the reader has to invest some time reading articles from certain critics. Eventually he/she will find someone that is either more compatible with him or become able to exaclty understand what the critic's comments mean for him and whether he 'll like the game or not.
It's a mess, I know. And there are other aspects to this mess, hardly related to the critics themselves. For example, mass acceptance of games brings problems similar to those any other media has faced upon mass acceptance. People make choices and want them to be the best. If I say otherwise I'm called a variety of names. It's amazing how many people only care about me telling them they have the best computer, the best console, the best whatever there is on earth, not for the games they play. And what of them? Oh, yes. Since they payed for them and played them, they have to be the best damned games humanity has ever come up with.
I feel I should stop right about here since I could go on and on, never reaching some kind of conclusion and infuriating everyone in the process.
I've already read quite valid points but I get the feeling it's impossible to simplify this whole negativity lust (?) as a trend or phenomenon.
For example, I too believe we live in a rather cynic and pessimistic but I 'm not sure this plays a big role when bashing a game in a review. When was the last time you met a professional critic that wasn't cynical? I don't think I've ever met one, incuding myself. The truth is, as with anything else commercial, there are only a few good games in the thousands that somehow find their way to retail each year. I think it's only natural.
The problem in the case of a journalist is that he/she has to play a boatload of mediocre games, before a good one shows up and the whole process can be a little disheartening.
What's more I think what Cheeze Pavilion asks for in a review is impossible to give. You want to know what you may like while, the way I see it, I can only TRY to provide you with what I believe it's good. In my opinion, what's good and what's fun can be two totally different things. I myself have enjoyed games I knew that weren't any good for obvious reasons. I enjoyed them besides knowing that if certain things were remedied, I'd enjoye the game that much more. In the end, I did enjoy the game, but I marked it down.
I realize what the fault in my logic is: I assume I can tell which game is good, regardless of how much fun I might have playing it. And that is exactly what (believe it or not) eats me up every time. But how can a gamer see through me and what I write? I'm afraid there's only one way. In the end the gamer, reader etc. has to participate more in the process. What I mean is that the reader has to invest some time reading articles from certain critics. Eventually he/she will find someone that is either more compatible with him or become able to exaclty understand what the critic's comments mean for him and whether he 'll like the game or not.
It's a mess, I know. And there are other aspects to this mess, hardly related to the critics themselves. For example, mass acceptance of games brings problems similar to those any other media has faced upon mass acceptance. People make choices and want them to be the best. If I say otherwise I'm called a variety of names. It's amazing how many people only care about me telling them they have the best computer, the best console, the best whatever there is on earth, not for the games they play. And what of them? Oh, yes. Since they payed for them and played them, they have to be the best damned games humanity has ever come up with.
I feel I should stop right about here since I could go on and on, never reaching some kind of conclusion and infuriating everyone in the process.
While reading your post I could only think of the saying:Yaponvezos said:
"Everyone's a critic"
Yeah, it seems like its about playing a game that is retardedly hard so they can brag about it on forums(Because no matter how nerdy or geeky you are you can never brag about completeing a game in real life).Or they want to hate it for ranting fuel. i wish there were more "fun" games than "challenging". a game can be both but it leans towards one or the other more often than not. CoD4 was challenging on veteran but it was NOT fun.Fable was fun but about as challenging as babies are delicious(meaning really easy except for a certain few) but I definately Enjoyed Fable(in general) than I did attempting CoD4 on veteran.
Its ok, blood feud is only really deadly if your an ancient Japanese Samuarai, if you live in America or Europe its actually settled with Thumb War.stevesan said:
Not me. I revel in finding the good in every piece of crap. I find myself admitting that a lot of games that got mediocre reviews were actually pretty good if you play to their niche.
That's what it ends up being about, really, taste. If people like the taste of self-righteousness, then fine, let them find every fault they wish. Soon enough they will find infinite amounts of faults because they will want to see everything in a negative and uninspiring way. I can't judge them for it. I enjoy a bit of fire and brimstone myself, but I like where my optimum point is, and while some reviewers are entertaining with their negativity, I don't take anything without a grain of salt.
What ticks me more than people tending to find the worst in things rather than the best is when people take popularity for substance. I, for example, watched Yahtzee's Fable and The Darkness reviews on YouTube months before I heard of his inclusion into the Escapist. I was stoked to find out that I'll be getting funny stuff about my favourite hobby on a weekly basis, sure, just as the next person would be. What I can't stand now and couldn't stand then is the fanboy-ism that comes with the rise of such commentary. I recall more than one time reading a post stating that if Yahtzee said a game didn't suck balls completely, that game must be good.
No, it fucking isn't. A reviewer can only give you a perspective that goes as far as his or her own opinion, period. What they consider to be good is at least a bit different from what you consider to be good, and if you change your opinions to merely fit in with a popular reviewer or popular opinion, then that means that you never really had a strong opinion of your own, and that you didn't really give much thought to what you, the most important node of your life, like or dislike. Though I sound very condescending in this statement, I can't place a verdict on those people either. I can only disagree, but that's really all I need.
Frankly, there are some things on which I disagree with Yahtzee, for example. I don't care, it's just opinions- they differ on the mere basis that we are different people, and I'm pretty sure there is only one of each person out there, so I wouldn't bother worrying about this. I watch ZP for laughs and entertainment, really. I love it when I hear my own opinion reiterated, especially in a creative or funny manner, but I also don't take it too badly when it isn't.
Ultimately I think it's up to whatever people want to do. Some people really don't give a crap about what their thoughts on life and its many aspects are, as long as they mach hordes of others', and you know what? I'm in no position to judge that either- they have different priorities.
That's what it ends up being about, really, taste. If people like the taste of self-righteousness, then fine, let them find every fault they wish. Soon enough they will find infinite amounts of faults because they will want to see everything in a negative and uninspiring way. I can't judge them for it. I enjoy a bit of fire and brimstone myself, but I like where my optimum point is, and while some reviewers are entertaining with their negativity, I don't take anything without a grain of salt.
What ticks me more than people tending to find the worst in things rather than the best is when people take popularity for substance. I, for example, watched Yahtzee's Fable and The Darkness reviews on YouTube months before I heard of his inclusion into the Escapist. I was stoked to find out that I'll be getting funny stuff about my favourite hobby on a weekly basis, sure, just as the next person would be. What I can't stand now and couldn't stand then is the fanboy-ism that comes with the rise of such commentary. I recall more than one time reading a post stating that if Yahtzee said a game didn't suck balls completely, that game must be good.
No, it fucking isn't. A reviewer can only give you a perspective that goes as far as his or her own opinion, period. What they consider to be good is at least a bit different from what you consider to be good, and if you change your opinions to merely fit in with a popular reviewer or popular opinion, then that means that you never really had a strong opinion of your own, and that you didn't really give much thought to what you, the most important node of your life, like or dislike. Though I sound very condescending in this statement, I can't place a verdict on those people either. I can only disagree, but that's really all I need.
Frankly, there are some things on which I disagree with Yahtzee, for example. I don't care, it's just opinions- they differ on the mere basis that we are different people, and I'm pretty sure there is only one of each person out there, so I wouldn't bother worrying about this. I watch ZP for laughs and entertainment, really. I love it when I hear my own opinion reiterated, especially in a creative or funny manner, but I also don't take it too badly when it isn't.
Ultimately I think it's up to whatever people want to do. Some people really don't give a crap about what their thoughts on life and its many aspects are, as long as they mach hordes of others', and you know what? I'm in no position to judge that either- they have different priorities.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that talking about what you like in a game can actually be a fair bit harder (and often quite a bit less interesting) than going over what you don't like.
Now I don't know about you, but whenever I'm having fun I generally just enjoy myself rather than trying to analyze why I'm having fun as doing this would detract significantly from my experience. On the other hand, when something disturbs or interrupts my fun, I specificially note what it was and why because it annoyed me and I want it to go away.
The end result is that the only way I have (and it'd suprise me greatly if this was only me) to quantify my enjoyment of a certain game is to count how much of it interrupted or disrupted my enjoyment of it and put that on some kind of less is better scale. To further this, games have this kind of paradoxial state where the whole can be both far more and far less than the sum of its parts (as in: lifting a fun element from a great game doesn't necessarily make a fun small game, and putting a whole lot of fun small elements together doesn't automatically make a fun whole) so it's difficult to just lift a part out and say "this automatically made it better".
As for the popularities of people such as the Angry Nintendo Nerd or Yahtzee -- deprecating humour is fun, it always has been; Bugs Bunny and Elmer Mudd anyone? A list of plain facts might be very informative, but it's also ultimately boring - by making reviews amusing there's a greater chance that people without any interest in the game (or even the genre) might read and enjoy the review, and might even try a game they never would have otherwise as a result. That said, I can't say I've watched either Zero Punctuation or the Angry Nintendo Nerd in the context of forming an opinion on a game - I watch them because they're fun, if I'm interested in a deciding judgement on a game I'll look up something more factual because I'll be hunting for facts as opposed to amusement.
As for why we focus on negativity, well.. what'd you rather play? Half-Life: Gordon's Black Mesa Disaster Survival Adventure or Half-Life: Gordon's Flowery Sample Cart Pushing Adventure?
Now I don't know about you, but whenever I'm having fun I generally just enjoy myself rather than trying to analyze why I'm having fun as doing this would detract significantly from my experience. On the other hand, when something disturbs or interrupts my fun, I specificially note what it was and why because it annoyed me and I want it to go away.
The end result is that the only way I have (and it'd suprise me greatly if this was only me) to quantify my enjoyment of a certain game is to count how much of it interrupted or disrupted my enjoyment of it and put that on some kind of less is better scale. To further this, games have this kind of paradoxial state where the whole can be both far more and far less than the sum of its parts (as in: lifting a fun element from a great game doesn't necessarily make a fun small game, and putting a whole lot of fun small elements together doesn't automatically make a fun whole) so it's difficult to just lift a part out and say "this automatically made it better".
As for the popularities of people such as the Angry Nintendo Nerd or Yahtzee -- deprecating humour is fun, it always has been; Bugs Bunny and Elmer Mudd anyone? A list of plain facts might be very informative, but it's also ultimately boring - by making reviews amusing there's a greater chance that people without any interest in the game (or even the genre) might read and enjoy the review, and might even try a game they never would have otherwise as a result. That said, I can't say I've watched either Zero Punctuation or the Angry Nintendo Nerd in the context of forming an opinion on a game - I watch them because they're fun, if I'm interested in a deciding judgement on a game I'll look up something more factual because I'll be hunting for facts as opposed to amusement.
As for why we focus on negativity, well.. what'd you rather play? Half-Life: Gordon's Black Mesa Disaster Survival Adventure or Half-Life: Gordon's Flowery Sample Cart Pushing Adventure?
