Have gamers of today become prima donnas?

[kingcom]

Well, I've met some people who meant it exactly like that. "It shouldn't be this way," basically is what they said. Like, there's only one way games SHOULD be.

Should be for them to enjoy it. Thats all people will ever say when they're commenting on something subjective, some few people are going to insist that there is only one way of thinking, whether it being on government policy, social ideology or video games. They are always a tiny minority that do not reflect and never should reflect all the people who share a similar opinion

I'm just giving my opinion on your opinion. Don't take it personally. I just honestly think that a lot of these negative things that people complain about in DA2 are unjustified. Well, no, it's not even like that. I just don't think it's justified to say, "I lost all respect for Bioware," or "I'm happy it's not selling well," all because of DA2's flaws.

Umm...okay I wont take it personally I guess? Im not sure where that came from...

Anyway, I think its justifiable to say whatever you want. I think its perfectly normal to feel good when your proved that other people share a similar viewpoint (shown through sales) or that you no longer trust a company's products based upon something you paid for and didn't like. They often say it much more aggressively because its the internet but thats what they are likely to be thinking.

 

[Canen]

The serious gamers of today have generally grown up through each 'golden era' of gaming (if, like me, you are hurtling towards your mid twenties and don't quite know which button you press to get your very own "life bullet time", anyway), and as technology has improved, so has the scope to develop on plotlines and characters. I believe, in my opinion, that we were much calmer and much more open to new ideas as gamers during the 16 and 32 bit era, where there wasn't really a great number of sequels around and we still had the gaming industry grinding out original titles that would go on to become legendary (Starwing, Super Mario, Sonic the Hedgehog, The Legend of Zelda, Bomberman...to name a few). These started out as singular entities, and only became franchises in later eras.

In the modern era, we have created monster franchises like Halo, where the game grows from being an original first person shooter with a plot and expands to gargantuan proportions through the medium of gamer hype and expectation. The minute a game progresses from a singular entity to a series is when a virtual standard gets set, and then developers are under extreme pressure to maintain that standard. At that point I believe it must be very difficult for developers to strike a balance between what the fans want from a game and what will make the game a hit, and such is the diverse nature of the gaming world's fanbase that it is simply impossible to satisfy everyone all the time.

 

[Silent Biohazard Solid]

Umm...okay I wont take it personally I guess? Im not sure where that came from...

Anyway, I think its justifiable to say whatever you want. I think its perfectly normal to feel good when your proved that other people share a similar viewpoint (shown through sales) or that you no longer trust a company's products based upon something you paid for and didn't like. They often say it much more aggressively because its the internet but thats what they are likely to be thinking.

I just don't want you to think I'm insulting your opinion or anything.

But since we ARE talking about opinion. That's it. It's my humble opinion that the kind of radical statements that people are making about DA2, and Bioware are unjustified.
Partially because Bioware has no competition. (Well, obviously it does. What I mean is, nobody makes quite the same style of games as Bioware does. And those who tried, didn't do so good.) So you can turn your back on Bioware. But where are you gonna get another RPG like Mass Effect or Dragon Age? I can't think of one.

 

[kingcom]

But since we ARE talking about opinion. That's it. It's my humble opinion that the kind of radical statements that people are making about DA2, and Bioware are unjustified.
Partially because Bioware has no competition. (Well, obviously it does. What I mean is, nobody makes quite the same style of games as Bioware does. And those who tried, didn't do so good.) So you can turn your back on Bioware. But where are you gonna get another RPG like Mass Effect or Dragon Age? I can't think of one.

Fair enough, I think its perfectly justified for a dislike of Bioware over dislike thier game.
I know I'm going to seriously consider buying a new Dark Heresy source book over Mass Effect 3.

Obsidian used to, maybe we will get to see some more out of them. Their track record of games I've enjoyed has been about equal to Bioware anyway. Simply put, if Bioware is the only person who makes that kind of game and a person dislikes them, they will spend their money on something else.

 

[Silent Biohazard Solid]

Obsidian used to, maybe we will get to see some more out of them. Their track record of games I've enjoyed has been about equal to Bioware anyway. Simply put, if Bioware is the only person who makes that kind of game and a person dislikes them, they will spend their money on something else.

Yeah, unfortunately, Obsidian is exactly what I'm talking about. I was the one person who wanted to give Alpha Protocol the benefit of the doubt, but it just wasn't that good.

But yeah, they could spend their money on something else. But I dunno. If I like a certain genre (or subgenre) then I'll want to have my fill of it. Yes, I hate Resident Evil now, yes, I can spend my money on something else. But that doesn't change the fact that I have Survival Horror blue balls.

Same goes for any genre that I like. During the mid 2000s, there were hardly any good JRPGs out. I couldn't find a single one that I enjoyed. Again, JRPG blue balls.

I guess if you don't mind abandoning a whole subgenre of gaming, or hoping against hope that another company will make an RPG as good as DAO or ME, then that's fine. Me, I need my fill, and as long as Dragon Age doesn't totally destroy the foundation of the backstory that it was based on, then I'll settle for even a mediocre Dragon Age game. Which, don't get me wrong, I still stand by my opinion that Dragon Age 2 is great (not mediocre), and frankly, in many aspects better than the original, combat engine and dialogue tree included.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

It is the internet and besides almost everyone nowadays is a bit of a prima donna when it comes to their wallet.

 

[Canen]

It is the internet and besides almost everyone nowadays is a bit of a prima donna when it comes to their wallet.

When it comes to our wallets though, I think people are prepared to flesh out some paper for what's right for them. I would happily pay over the odds for a game I really liked, although I would make sure I at least had done some research into what I was signing up for, without spoiling the plot.

 

[Silent Biohazard Solid]

It is the internet and besides almost everyone nowadays is a bit of a prima donna when it comes to their wallet.

Well yes. But I'm actually more referring to comparing it to how it was when we were all younger. And yes, I know we grew up, and the industry changed, and blah blah blah. But honestly, I just miss the time when we could just buy a sequel and enjoy it for what it is, and not have to dissect it and pick out every little flaw about it.

 

[kingcom]

Same goes for any genre that I like. During the mid 2000s, there were hardly any good JRPGs out. I couldn't find a single one that I enjoyed. Again, JRPG blue balls.

I guess if you don't mind abandoning a whole subgenre of gaming, or hoping against hope that another company will make an RPG as good as DAO or ME, then that's fine. Me, I need my fill, and as long as Dragon Age doesn't totally destroy the foundation of the backstory that it was based on, then I'll settle for even a mediocre Dragon Age game. Which, don't get me wrong, I still stand by my opinion that Dragon Age 2 is great (not mediocre), and frankly, in many aspects better than the original, combat engine and dialogue tree included.

Ok, see I loved Alpha Protocol so Obsidian games, while buggy, havn't really let me down.

Well I don't really have a whole lot of choice in the matter. I know I'm never going to see a game like Baldur's Gate every again or something like Deus Ex (despite what the new one is going to be promised to be). If I cant enjoy something I cant enjoy it. I cannot force my self to like Dragon Age 2 so all I can do is treat it truthfully, going into their next product with significant skepticism.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Fact: Dragon Age 2 is a good game.

Theres your problem right there.

By core definition of the word, it's a good game.
I've tried arguing good game, bad game before. Trying to say, "This game sucks," only to get a response, "It's gott solid, polished gameplay. It's got great graphics. It's a good game."

So if I'm gonna say "fine" to that, then Dragon Age 2 is a good game. If you wanna argue that it's a bad game, then so is Mario Galaxy, and Dead Space, and Halo.

You really need to distinguish between subjective assessment/opinions and objective facts, "good game" is not a fact it is merely your subjective view.
So people with low expectations will praise it, those with high expectations wont, you can't say one party is more right then the other, they simply want different things.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

It is the internet and besides almost everyone nowadays is a bit of a prima donna when it comes to their wallet.

When it comes to our wallets though, I think people are prepared to flesh out some paper for what's right for them. I would happily pay over the odds for a game I really liked, although I would make sure I at least had done some research into what I was signing up for, without spoiling the plot.

I am not saying that is a bad thing but people can get really pissed when reaching into their pocket for something not worth it.

It is the internet and besides almost everyone nowadays is a bit of a prima donna when it comes to their wallet.

Well yes. But I'm actually more referring to comparing it to how it was when we were all younger. And yes, I know we grew up, and the industry changed, and blah blah blah. But honestly, I just miss the time when we could just buy a sequel and enjoy it for what it is, and not have to dissect it and pick out every little flaw about it.

You're still forgetting this is the internet. Normal Person + Anonymity = Fuckwad. Unfortunately a lot of people are like that. There is a big crowd of people that think if it ain't broken don't fix it and that is true but we do need innovation. I am willing to try a sequel in a series to see what it is like and I have liked many of them some not so much. Mostly due to some changes that were not to my taste(Sphere Grid FFX and License Board FFXII just for an example). Since this is the internet people can get more vocal and you notice them more but they are usually a minority so I wouldn't worry about it plenty of peopel do enjoy sequels if they didn't Final Fantasy would of ended long ago. Whether or not you or anyone else thinks that is a good thing for that series is a different matter.

 

[Silent Biohazard Solid]

Ok, see I loved Alpha Protocol so Obsidian games, while buggy, havn't really let me down.

Well I don't really have a whole lot of choice in the matter. I know I'm never going to see a game like Baldur's Gate every again or something like Deus Ex (despite what the new one is going to be promised to be). If I cant enjoy something I cant enjoy it. I cannot force my self to like Dragon Age 2 so all I can do is treat it truthfully, going into their next product with significant skepticism.

Still, I remember when Alpha Protocol got delayed by like 6 months and they said, "We want to make it a AAA title." Which it's not. But beyond that. It got some negative reviews, negative feedback, and while you like it, because it was ultimately unsuccessful, it's probably not gonna get a sequel. Which sucks for anyone who liked it. (But I'm not gonna say that it's a bad game, just because I didn't like it.)

And I'm not sure how AP ended, but considering Dragon Age 2's ending, I'd be pretty depressed if we don't get Dragon Age 3. And frankly, because it does seem like it will lead into something bigger, I'd see no point in keeping it, if there's no sequel for it.

You really need to distinguish between subjective assessment/opinions and objective facts, "good game" is not a fact it is merely your subjective view.
So people with low expectations will praise it, those with high expectations wont, you can't say one party is more right then the other, they simply want different things.

Maybe that's the problem. People don't know what the hell they want. I don't just mean from the game, I mean in general.
I say, "It's a bad game," I get a bunch of people saying, "But it has polished gameplay and great graphics and that constitutes as a good game," I say, "Okay fine. If those are the criteria, then it's a good game," then I say, "This is a good game based on that criteria," and I get, "It's subjective. There's no actual criteria."
But yeah, I think it's the same thing for the games themselves. I think consumers don't know what they want half the time. If you give them more of the same, they'll complain that it's too similar, if you give them something new, they'll complain that it's too different from the prequel. That's why I said gamers in general are prima donnas these days.

They (including me on certain subjects) need to accept the good with the bad, and learn to enjoy what's given to them.
And again, guys, this doesn't mean that EVERYONE has to like Dragon Age 2. Nor is it the only game I'm talking about. It's just the most relevant game to the discussion at this time. And I wasn't even gonna bother with this discussion, until I saw all those people bitching about Mortal Kombat. But hey, Dragon Age 2 is a more relevant topic on these forums, so it became the center of the conversation. But my opinion is universal.

Listen to Mr. Bing Crosby:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cgVRwITAfY

It's been fun, guys. But I'm going to bed. Night.

 

[blind_dead_mcjones]

As a whole, or as taken by the vocal minority (well, HOPEFULLY minority), Gamers on the internet are bitchy, unfair and highly inconsistent in thier judgement.

Gamers want innovation, but when a game comes around that does even the slightest thing different (See: Mirror's Edge, Beyond Good & Evil, Enslaved), no one will buy it. Instead, they ***** about how the game isn't THAT innovative, how the game mechanics aren't quite perfect (Guess what, MS Word 1.0 or Photoshop 1.0 weren't that perfect either) and how they don't get the value for thier money.
Instead, Titles like Call of Duty Black Ops sell like crazy...and even then gamers ***** about it for not being something new.

And even with games that gamers love, people actively search things to ***** about that "ruin" the game, and if the developers actually listen to the fans and patch up things, they probably ***** even more about it.

Just a few minutes ago i saw/read something about the cool AR Minigames included with the Nintendo 3Ds (look up the video, its gimmicky, but awesome), and all that readers could comment about is how long AR Game Concepts have been around and how lame Nintendo is etc..
I swear, if the entire mankind would behave like Gamers on the Internet, we'd still be riding around in horse carriages...

this

though i would go so far as to say that this phenomonon of fans being spoilt, whiny, and to a degree ungrateful isn't limited to just gamers, but nerd subculture in general, there is also the fact that often people feel the need to berate or pick at every niggling detail in someone or something simply because its popular/big, in a vain attempt to 'cut them down to size' the popularity of zero punctuation, and the willingness to blame the developers for everything from slight glitches/hiccups or overpowered weapons in multiplayer modes to poor sales and piracy speak volumnes towards this mindset

its a wonder companies even bother putting up with it for so long, because i can gaurantee if they weren't gaining some huge benefit, they would've gone 'to hell with this ungrateful lot, we'll go back to focusing on TV's, stereos and microwaves exclusively' long ago

 

[Smooth Operator]

You really need to distinguish between subjective assessment/opinions and objective facts, "good game" is not a fact it is merely your subjective view.
So people with low expectations will praise it, those with high expectations wont, you can't say one party is more right then the other, they simply want different things.

Maybe that's the problem. People don't know what the hell they want. I don't just mean from the game, I mean in general.
I say, "It's a bad game," I get a bunch of people saying, "But it has polished gameplay and great graphics and that constitutes as a good game," I say, "Okay fine. If those are the criteria, then it's a good game," then I say, "This is a good game based on that criteria," and I get, "It's subjective. There's no actual criteria."
But yeah, I think it's the same thing for the games themselves. I think consumers don't know what they want half the time. If you give them more of the same, they'll complain that it's too similar, if you give them something new, they'll complain that it's too different from the prequel. That's why I said gamers in general are prima donnas these days.

With "what people want" you are trying to stuff millions of players wishes into one bag, individuals know what they want, but as companies desire a broad audience they will do a blend of all things someone might like, and that simply does not work, as people will always be pissed by the sh*t they didn't want in their sandwich.
Also why the casual audience usually wont mind, they just wanted something to chew and that alone will bring in good money, the down side is developers lose incentive to make something tasty.

 

[GotMalkAvian]

Gamers are kinda becoming prima donnas, but in all the wrong ways. People will gladly plunk down money for DLC that was already on the disc and will wait patiently for weeks for a new release to be patched just so it's playable. However, change a combat system or streamline an inventory system and it's hissy fit time.

I think you hit a major point when you mentioned the increasing popularity of internet forums over the years. Back when I was in high school or younger, there were only a few places to talk about games: Friends that played games, gaming magazines, and game stores. Rarely could you bring together enough people to complain about a certain game, so you just shrugged your shoulders and either gave up on a game or enjoyed it in spite of its faults.

Nowadays, we can go on a forum, start complaining, and find thousands of other people with the same complaints. Rather than accepting a few minor flaws in an otherwise enjoyable experience, each tiny problem gets picked apart and blown out of proportion, all the while people feeding off each other's complaints and feeling validated. Eventually, you end up with tidal waves of hatred like the whole DAII debacle; I honestly don't think I've ever seen gamers so polarized by a single title.

For my part, I'm heartily enjoying DAII, and look forward to a few more playthroughs and possibly some DLC.

 

[Kortney]

Not really, because that's assuming that most gamers act that way. The few who cried and had a tantrum over Dragon Age 2 were a very loud minority.

I think gamers need to realise that a project is the vision of a developer. It shouldn't be fan service and they should make the games for them. That's how all good art/entertainment/whateveryouwanttocall it is made. You don't have a right to have your game tailored to your needs. That's just my view.

 

[ultrachicken]

Fact: Dragon Age 2 is a good game. They may not have liked the changes in it, and that's understandable. But it is long, it has a solid storyline without any noticable plot holes, and the gameplay is pretty polished, especially for an RPG and graphics that were a major improvement over the first one.

You're not making sense. Whether or not a game is good or bad cannot be stated as fact. "Good" and "bad" reflect opinions, something you don't seem to comprehend.

You can hate it, but that doesn't justify user reviews that give it a 1/10.

Uh, yes, it does. If you think a game is absolute shit, then giving it a 1/10 is perfectly reasonable.

 

[Silent Biohazard Solid]

You can hate it, but that doesn't justify user reviews that give it a 1/10.

Uh, yes, it does. If you think a game is absolute shit, then giving it a 1/10 is perfectly reasonable.

Yeah, I tried that once, and was accused of trolling and had my review taken down. So I guess the gaming community aren't only prima donnas, they're also hypocrites. Because apparently it's only okay to give a game a bad review when you have an army of people agreeing with you.

 

[Regiment]

Not all gamers are, but those that are are very loud about it. A lot of gamers have no middle ground whatsoever- a game is either the best thing ever or the worst thing ever. Much of the problem is that tastes vary. A sequel has two options: duplicate the previous game verbatim or change stuff. Keeping the game the same will attract few new fans- they'd have bought the last game- and it'll lose some, who don't really feel like spending $60 on Hero Guy 2 when Hero Guy 1 is still on the shelf. If a sequel changes stuff, they'll keep some fans and attract others, while certainly alienating some of their fans a bit. No aspect of any franchise has ever been removed, minimized, pushed aside, or recolored without someone being disappointed in their favorite part of the game changing.