Why are gamers happier when complaining than when playing?

Recommended Videos

Lord_Sammael

New member
Oct 13, 2007
11
0
0
Here's a reason why people whine more than gush a game with love.

PEOPLE ARE LAZY!!!!!!!
IT IS EASIER TO WHINE THAN TO ACTUALLY SAY SOMETHING GOOD ABOUT A GAME!!!
(FYI same thing goes for movie critics)
 

MichaelAB

New member
Nov 21, 2007
36
0
0
I think it is because a person can never fail to complain, but they can fail at anything else, so complaining is the safe avenue.
 

RidleyValiant

White Knight
Nov 12, 2007
96
0
0
I'm not sure people are happier when complaining than when playing. You've got to bear in mind that when you're gaming, and you find a game you don't like or something about a game you don't like, you're going to want to vent it. Shouting and screaming and mentioning these things to non gamers is about as much use as a peper bag at trying to keep out bullets. They don't understand the complaints, generally speaking (For example, I hate CoD4, i couldn't stand the game, but bleating about it to my parents or my girlfriend would have got me absolutely nowhere other than "you shouldn't have got it in the first place"). And so gamers come to other gamers to complain and express themselves. You don't hear about happy people playing games because, they are generally playing games instead of complaining about them. This is just my view however, I'm sure there are plenty of valid ones.
 

raankh

New member
Nov 28, 2007
502
0
0
A bit surprised nobody said this yet, so here goes (declining artform aside, sorry @ Selka):

We whine because: GAMES WHERE BETTER BACK IN THE DAYS!

Well, really, on a more serious note, everything was innovation up until the mid 90's (some glaring exceptions of course). Although I'm not so sure the games themselves where in particular "better", the industry surrounding them was very different and promoted innovation and unique gameplay rather than specific, dependent APIs.

Like so many other entertainment industries (music, movies and tv-shows come to mind), we're essentially in a period where games mostly regurgitate the same ol' same old. The channels by which we are exposed to innovative games has become flooded with advertisement and hype, so quality means essentially nothing to your sales statistics. Like other entertainment industries I think there's a struggle to find new retail channels, but nobody knows how that's going to pan out; instead companies jealously guard their IP and blame software piracy for the decline of the world economy and global warming.

There's also the problem of platform. Compatibility is essentially non-existent in the games industry. Imagine if the same would be true of music. It _is_ becoming true in the movie-business (HD-DVD, Blueray, HDCP etc). Games have struggled with platform dependence all along and as such, IMO, is a clear indication of how hurtful closed, proprietary, licensed platforms can be to smaller, hungry and innovating companies.

Oh, I'll just shut up now ... enough whining :)
 

JTF

New member
Dec 1, 2007
1
0
0
I don't think games were really all that much better in the past, nor do I think games have ceased to be an art form. The industry has expanded, no doubt, since the lauded mid-1990s referenced by Selka, and companies have realized the huge profit potential in the gaming industry. Games now may no longer be the labors of love they were in the '80s and even '90s when gaming was niche market and barriers to entry were small, but gaming as both a market and art form has thrived.

Certainly, there have been fantastic, groundbreaking games in the past that are very much worth playing today. These games have stood the test of time. But how many of those games' contemporaries have faded into obscurity? You remember greats like Final Fantasy 7, Goldeneye, Half-Life, and Starcraft not only because of how good they were, but because of how much better they were than other games released at the time. Even popular games from that era are terrible in comparison to mediocre games released today. Try to an early Tomb Raider game now. You'll find it terrible: difficult to control, uninspiring, and dull (not to mention the disturbingly angular figure of Ms. Croft). It's easy to see the leaps made in game technology and call new games tired facelifts of old ideas, but standards of gameplay, immersion, and storytelling have slowly trickled in behind the shiny facade of HDR lighting and normal mapping. Some games, certainly, have fallen into the trap of allowing graphics and technical sophistication to cloud storyline and writing, but many designers-the designers of the greats of today which will be played fondly in another ten years-have understood that new technology allows them to replace text with action. Not visceral, intense gameplay, but dramatic action that proves the continued vitality of gaming as art.

To take Selka's example of the Orange Box, look at the ending of Episode 2. There's no need for drawn out cutscenes to convey deeply personal information about the game's characters. The understanding that both cinematic and gameplay techniques can be applied to game design allows new games to set a far higher standard than old ones. This is evident playing new games back to back with old. Goldeneye was wonderfully fun when it came out, certainly, but I'd only play it today because I had so much fun with it as a kid. For someone approaching gaming today, virtually no one would choose it over even Halo, let alone Bioshock, Half-Life 2, or even an overlooked title like the Darkness. Even RPGs, which rely far less on sheer digital horsepower, have grown tremendously. New(er) games like Mass Effect, Vampire: Bloodlines, KoTOR, Eternal Darkness, Nocturne, Morrowind, Oblivion or Arcanum tell compelling stories while allowing the player more freedom than was even possible in the days of Final Fantasy 7.

I can't speak for all of the posters here, but I was rather young in the mid-nineties (I'm close to Selka's age, for reference), and I sometimes feel the same way. But, at the risk of revisiting an earlier point, when I get too deep in nostalgia and dig through my old games, I find something surprising. I don't want to play most of them. I dig out my Genesis or Super Nintendo (or load ZSNES), my PS1 or N64...and either throw in the tried-and-true few(a Mario, a Sonic, a Final Fantasy), or I decide to come to something newer. I'll take Twisted Metal: Black over Twisted Metal 2. I'll take Gears of War over Quake (hell, I might even take Doom 3). I even find myself playing Company of Heroes or World in Conflict over Starcraft.

I ask those of you who, like Selka, look wistfully back at the olden days of gaming to do the same.If you were truly dissatisfied with gaming, I doubt you'd still be discussing it here. It's certainly discouraging, and a valid complaint, to see a hobby that's been "ours" for years become part of the mainstream, eschewing our UT and counterstrike clans for frat guys on xbox-Live, seeing middle -aged moms playing Wii Sports or Brain Age, but that mainstream acceptance is what will allow video games to grow further as both art and business. Just as quirky, independent films are released today long after the era of penny-arcades and weird German expressionist flicks, so inspired, sublime, lovingly crafted games will continue to be produced alongside the Guitar Heroes, the Halos, and the yearly installment of EA Sports titles.
 
Dec 1, 2007
782
0
0
Cynicism has the razor's edge of authenticity. Whether deserved or not, people like Yahtzee, and the reviews on SomethingAwful, automatically become creditable when they trash things. When they defend or endorse things, for instance the Psychonauts review, we immediately question their motivations (even when we have no reason to do this), and they themselves become open for ridiculue and judgement. There is a reason the "You Band Sucks" guy has never gone on record stating what bands he likes.

Its like if Walmart tomorrow starts reviewing games and gives Generic Game X a perfect score. However valid the score is, and however much credibility Walmart's reviewing section achieves, we will always distrust that score more then if they said Generic Game X sucks horribly and ruins pregnancies.
A symptom of the age of universal fear, or a natural product of a civilization at this level of communication, I cannot say.
 

Saskwach

New member
Nov 4, 2007
2,321
0
0
I'm stealing that Anna Karenina principle from Guns, Germs and Steel, lossely paraphrased.
"All happy families are happy in the same way. All sad families are sad in different ways."
To be good something needs to nail everything or most important things. To talk about all of them and convey it's overall goodness is hard. Much easier to complain about a bad game because it's bad in these here areas that almost ask for a pointing to.