Gaming community hostility?

I've noticed an unpleasant trend:
As far as I can tell, as time goes, with each release there's increased hostility from gaming community. Basically, no matter what is released, somebody will make a post "this game is a warcrame", and people will argue that to the death for hundreds of pages.

Basically I would like to know if this is a global trend, an actual trend, or only concerns steam community.

I also recall that unpleasant story where a game developer was receiving death threats over decision to go epic store exclusive. (That involved Ooblets)

Thoughts?

 

I agree, but I think its just the internet in general not just gaming. In general everything is getting more ****** up as time goes on and I personally blame social media (and I would include reddit say as social media) for twisting up the internet and a lot of its users into the monstrosity we have now.

The hate and insanity online is just so much higher than it ever has been and it seems to get worse.

(A portion of) Gamers have always been really vile towards developers online, but its the sheer scale of it now that is really worrying (mass co-ordinated often) - as well as the fact that its not really a small portion anymore, but the general populace feels emboldeded and entitled now and the behaviour and animosity with each major release shows. People are genuinly co-ordinating in their attempts to troll, or in worse cases abuse and harm people and its really getting out of hand.

But I ask a question back, what can actually be done about it? I keep thinking about this and I just cant come up with any thing that can realistically be done / make a difference to the situation


P.S I assume this is in relation to the severe death threats the cyberpunk team have recieved forcing a lot of developers (including lead designer) to completely unplug from twitter for a few days?

Its crazy how people can idolize a game (or any game) so much but at the same time **** on the people that worked hard to make in the blink of an eye

EDIT: On topic though: I dont know if a trend has been found but I am sure this is being studied by some researchers somewhere by now. I can confirm its this way in UK though

 

I think every community got haters.
More followers = more haters.

Doesn't mean necessarily, there is more haters than before.

Or maybe quality of games went generally down to the drain ... pulling general gamers mood as well with it.

 

Aside from Nuking the planet and letting cockroaches build a better world... (/joke)

I'm currently leaning towards the idea that it makes sense to release games on stores that do not provide forum boards, and disable forum discussions on the resources that do. People can't spew hatred on a forum board, if one does not exist.

 

VR customers are nice mature people. Upside of targeting a platform were the hardware costs thousands of USD

 

I'm currently playing Cyberpunk 2077. I'm actually enjoyed it, even though I hated RDR2, didn't quite like GTA5 and so on. Sure, there are some oversights, but..... the stuff on steam community discussion is pure insanity. That made me start thinking.

Personally I feel like rather than quality going down the drain, expectations shoot through the roof and people take more things for granted than they did before. Another puzzling thing I've encountered is that there are more people who think that developers are required to adhere to their every whim. They think they're employers, not buyers. Which is not the case.

It's not. IT is in relation in me playing cyberpunk, enjoying it, and making a mistake of taking a glance at what's going on on steam forums. Then I remembered that this seems to be happening every time anything is released.

 

I am playing cyberpunk too and am enjoying it! Sure there is some stuff they had to cut and there could be a bit more interaction in the world (like a lot of it feels hollow after about 20 hours due to repetition of the same static assets you cannot interact with) considering how they marketed it, but the actual core game is solid and I am loving it as a cyperpunk RPG which is what its supposed to be. But yes I also read steam and reddit and I should not have because people there pick on the smallest things.

Theres lots of posts of people moaning that theres no trains but still a 3d model for the trainline. Its like moan if its delayed, moan if stuff gets cut. Gamers be gamers I guess.

I also find it strange because Witcher 3 came out with basically same issues, bug ridden and lots of stuff cut or different from expectations such as graphics, everyone went mental, and then they patched it up and released more content and suddenly if was everyones baby darling.

For Cyberpunk I predict the same people sending deaththreats now, will be the ones shouting how its the best game ever once CDPR also patch it to the same extent etc

 

I'm not a fan of blanket "group X is getting worse" claims.

I'm also not a fan of "people shouldn't be allowed to voice criticisms" claims (this is what you're saying when you say games shouldn't have forums).

Sad sacks who get off on complaining about things have always and will always exist. Their voices shouldn't drown out those who have legitimate complaints, or want discussion (and cutting off everyone because of the existence of the former is letting them dictate the conversation).

 

The claim is based on experience. And it is not "Group X", but The Internet in general. I remember the internet before youtube.

They are allowed to voice their criticism in their own property, on their own blog and so on. There are millions ways to do it.

My issue here is that people appear to feel that they're entitled to be heard by a specific person, and think that said person is obliged to tolerate their behavior. Which is not the case.

Dealing with lunatics, insults and especially death threats is mentally taxing, and a human being should not be subjected to such treatment. If poor behavior becomes a common occurrence, then rather than tolerating nutcases, it would be better idea to completely shut down the area where attacks occur, so there will be no more of them.

It is also possible to go further and revoke person's rights to buy a product of this company, by blacklisting their future purchases but this is much more likely to run into legal issues.

Basically, if communities do not appear to be places which help promotion of the game and creating positive experience from actual users, why have the communities in the first place? They can be removed.

I think this is logical.

 

It's not the gaming community specifically, but the internet in general. Being an anonymous figure on the internet lets people yell & scream & say whatever they want about anything without caring about being respectful or worrying about the things they say coming back to bite them.
The gaming community just happens to be huge.

Reminds me of that one Mike Tyson quote:

 

Did you notice this on other gaming forums? GoG or others? I wouldn't be much surprised if it was a Steam thing although the internet is going haywire nowadays, unfortunately...

 

I respect people for what they do not for fear of a punch in the face

 

Oh,unfortunately, that became the classic style of communication in the internet

 

I expect that a lot of people were having a crap year and were relying on getting lost in their dream game to save their locked down souls. Personally I think people are living in games (and social media for that matter) way too much these days, but that's their choice.

But it's a sad reality of games today that crumpled, burning hype-trains are way too common. None of these big companies do something unexpectedly magnificent, it's a choice between 10% as good as you thought or 50%. It's almost like the hype of games is the main event, with 10 years of partying and fanfare, while releasing the game is just a thing you do at the end to round things off.

 

I think there is lots of blame on game studio side as well, when they start pumping hype with promos and vids and promising whats not. Then at release, bunch of features is just cut out.

I love Witcher 3 and I did all of it with DLC. I haven't played yet cyberpunk. Here is one thing, which is common between both of them. Both production promised living world, some great AI etc.And that probably one of many things cut out. Both failed to provide that. Whether that spoils fun and gameplay, that depends on individuals. But expectations are already set on to community.

To be honest, after Witcher 3, I expected at least some of that in cyberpunk. From what I read, this is rather lacking.

My point is not about these two games however. But about trending, that community is not fully at fault of their beloved game title, whatever it is.

This is at least my view on the subject.

 

Okay, sure. You didn't say that in your OP though, that's what I was basing that on.

You're characterizing things in such a black and white manner. It's entirely possible for reception to be generally positive, but with a couple morons who bash it incessantly. Cases like Cyberpunk are really not the norm. How many games have released between this and the last "controversial" game (Last of Us Part II as far as I can tell)? Most don't have the reception these games do, so it doesn't make sense to use them as the baseline for what one can expect to experience.

I also think it's possible for the deliberate decision to limit or prevent discussion to have a negative impact on the perception of your product and your brand. Probably better to do it in a blanket manner for all discussion, than what we see in some communities where specific topics get deleted, but it will still occur.

And ultimately, A) if it doesn't exist at a space you own, it can pop up elsewhere (like reddit), and B) in both cases (your own forums or another entity's), you don't have to engage with it. It doesn't have to take any toll on you.

 

Glad I live in Sweden, we can still eat out for lunch etc. I would go mad working from home if I couldnt have a decent lunch out

 

We're doing OK in Australia right now, it's pretty much business as usual. Though things can change quickly around here.

But there's probably a lot of people around the world who couldn't wait to get lost in a magnificent RPG.

 

I heard there was an option for cut or uncut, but only for men.

There's a slider for size, right? But again, only for men.

Seriously, the bug where, ummm, "pork and beans" pop out of your pants, how bad is that?

 

It does happen on other resources. I'm not sure about gog, because I never read it, but it became much more common that in case of any sort of disagreement the other person will go for flinging insults immediately.

And? The way I see it, those couple of morons have to be removed.

Yes, of course. However, not dealing with entitled lunatics may be worth it.

If it pops up elsewhere, it isn't developers problem.
As to "you don't have to engage it" is not really true. Because if you see it, you've engaged it, whether you want it or not.
Basically, if you have somebody standing at your door screaming "I'll murder you and your family", ignoring them is not necessarily the right idea, and it will put a toll on you.
And if poor behavior happens on a board associated with your game, then said behavior affects perception of your brand and your game - negatively. Because your product will be associated with toxicity and hatred. Which is not a good thing.

 

It's always been like this, everything from the armchair developers to the death threats.

Cyberpunk just seems to have had everything align perfectly for it to be really visible. Massive hype and expectations, buggy release, garbage year for most of humanity, etc.

Yeah, it's possible to learn to just deal it when it's just targeted at you. But If it's taking a toll on your family, then unless your a sociopath or something, it's probably going to take a toll on you.

 

But you really feel that "couple of morons" drowns out all of the positive discussion?

Yeah, like anything it's a cost vs. benefit determination.

I'm not really sure what you mean by your first sentence. Were you saying it isn't the developer's problem? Were you saying it's someone else's problem?

That's exactly what I'm referring to by "engage it." You don't have to spend time on the forums. You don't have to even go there. At no point are you forced to engage with it. To some degree this depends on what kind of site we're talking about - something like Steam isn't the same as having your own website with forums. I'm thinking with respect to Steam.

For sure the perception of a product can become associated with the fanbase, but I don't recall seeing it happen out-of-sync with the direction the developers take the product. Like the Bioware forums, which got a reputation for creepy romance fans--that only happened because Bioware puts a lot of money and time into extensive romantic conversations and video game sex. Or the Last of Us Part II - it made some pretty controversial story decisions (like

Spoiler

killing the protag of the previous game and having you play as the killer

) and the developers took an abrasive tone with pretty much any criticism. I think it's too early to make any conclusions about Cyberpunk, but they did withhold last-gen-console reviews until after the game released, which makes it pretty obvious what their expectations were.

 

Alot of you have it right, its not just steam, and its not just studios. Its more people on the internet, social media, and the mindset of them. I remember playing MMO's when they 1st came out, and what its like now. Today everyone wants to voice an opinion, but most just complain about what they dont like or what they want, and forget the hard work it takes to develop a game, and support it.

Steam is known for their pretty harsh community, and over critical. If you complain and insult a game that cost you $5.99, then you need your head examined. Steam also needs better game reviewers... For us developers, its hard to listen to the wants, dont wants, and comments, but you really should...

 

Yes.

Hostile community members are usually highly active and effectively drown out all possible positive interactions. You'll go to the first page of a forum, and all you're going to see is people spewing hatred.

I also do not recall a whole lot of positive discussions on platforms like steamcommunity. I do not believe they happen often.

Yes, that was a typo. It is now fixed.

You do have to spend time on the forums, if they're linked to your product's page. Because that's where people who bought the game are going to go. And everything that's happening there is part of the impression your product produces.

 

Agressive attitude can really easy derail any constructive discussions. Whether is positive, or about criticism. Such can rapidly cuts out participants, who want to engage in it, in any decent manner.

Filtering out such members, is natural thing, to keep community in a healthy state.
Mind, I am not talking here about censoring negative reviews.

 

It's definitely getting worse, and spilling over into the real world. The assault on Liana Ruppert by 2077 fans after she wrote that Game Informer article is one recent example.

But it's happening in many other areas on the internet. I think it has to do with the type of content people continuously expose themselves to. In any case, it's up to community managers to deal with that accordingly and take a more active role in what is said and who is saying it. While you don't want to go full on censorship, you have to strike the right balance in order to keep a community healthy, like Antypodish said.

People are continuously underestimating how much one damage one individual can do to an entire group of people in this current era -- not just emotionally and psychologically, but physically too.

 

Apologies in advance if someone has already mentioned this, I haven't fully read the whole thread. (Plan to later on.)

I think this is an emergent property of open communication platforms which feature anonymity. People can say what they want with little or no fear of consequences. In some cases that's a good thing, but in other cases it very much isn't.

There's this kind of filtering effect that seems to happen. People who are nice tend to want to avoid hanging out with jerks, but people who are jerks tend to happily hang out with nice people. So in places where there's a significant number of jerks the nice people eventually stop participating. The result is that to a newcomer to somewhere like the Steam forums it may look like the typical Steam user is a jerk, because there's a good chance that you'll see a lot of negativity and not a lot else.

The thing is that what we're seeing isn't actually representative of the "typical Steam user". What it really represents is "the group of Steam users who enjoy participating in their forums", which is a much more specific group of people. It'll also vary from game to game, and probably also based on where the game is in it's lifecycle, and a bunch of other significant influencing factors.

So, yes, I think what you're seeing is a general trend across the Internet, not just related to gaming. But I don't think it represents the average human being / gamer / internet user. It just represents the subset who want to spend time in those communities, accounting for the type of people who are already hanging out there.

In short: it seems to me that any online community eventually trends towards being full of jerks unless that trend is actively managed. This isn't because there are no nice people, it's because when the jerks show up the nice people begin to lose interest.

 

We definitely experienced this over the years (it is even evident here). Forum users are self-selected sub section of a particular community. Usually small, but vocal by their nature. There certainly are positive ones... they often don't seem stay. I found interesting is that quite often that the make is about the same. Whether it is a hard core community like Tribes, or an Engine like Torque/Unity or community of casual midwest Moms playing a HOG.

A certain percentage will find the online community and a certain percentage will be jerks. (if you think a teenage boy gamer can be a jerk, you should try to reason with a midwest stay at home mom). The people very, but the loud obnoxious ones are a very small percent. But what is worth noting, is that often those jerks are some of your biggest fans. They are so vocal because they are very invested in the game.

So very true. I would love for a large community to try having only verified real identities. I belong to a few large professional slack communities, active with tons of people, all real identities. There are no arguments, trolls or any negativity. Dunno if it is because everyone is real identities or the nature of the collective.

 

I believe World of Warcraft tried that. It was called RealID, and IIRC it used to be obligatory, then they changed it to optional.

Basically, real name information opens users to... offline harassment in real life.

Which is why we can't have nice things, I guess?

 

Maybe I should have said "neutral," or better qualified "positive." Looking at the front page of discussions for Red Dead Redemption 2, there aren't any explicitly positive threads, but not really any negative ones either (in this case it's obscured because there's no technical subforum). I believe that has inherent value, and I don't really see it as reflective of the game itself in any significant way.

If it's something like Steam's forums, you really don't have to, as evidenced by the fact that most developers don't. If it's your own website then sure, you're making a deliberate decision whether or not to build and support a community "watering hole."

For sure. I'm not arguing it should be a melee without any moderation, just that this situation (removing individual members) is better than nuking the whole thing.

I mean...Facebook? Twitter as well to a lesser degree. People still act awful on those platforms, don't they?

 

I think changing an established community/culture from one to another is going to be super challenging, because people will already have old behaviour and reputations to live up to. (Edit: in fact,it could have a negative impact. Negative behaviours people obfuscated would be made public, which may lead some people to embrace them openly since the cat is out of the bag anyway?)

I also think that the RealID thing was a result of legal requirements in Korea? While controversial, I liked the idea of reducing anonymity online, largely for the stuff I was talking about before. But I suspect it has to be something communities adopt when they're founded, so that users make a choice to be involved via that format rather than having it forced on them.

But... counterpoint: plenty of Facebook discussions also devolve into stupidity despite (supposedly) real names being in use. I wouldn't say it's the norm there, so it's still an improvement over, say, anything I have ever seen in a Starcraft lobby chat.

 

RDR2 has been released two years ago, and one year ago on PC. It is nearing its twilight phase if it hasn't already entered it.

"what a buggy mess", "Such a shame".

Meanwhile, on cyberpunk forums.
"Compensation for PC gamers"
"Cyberpunk vs sa bad it lost the company billions"
"What a huge, beautiful and pointless world"
"Metacritic user score" ("Some of you go around acting like there is nothing wrong with the game i hope some of you start waking up.")
"Please tell me what is revolutionary about this game... in any way"

Which is actually a bad thing, because it does create negative impression about the product and the platform in general. There are also guides on managing steam community.
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-07-11-fighting-a-toxic-steam-community-and-winning

I believe there's no inherent value, and plenty of those threads are troll food. Basically, anything that involves many pages of text is pretty much always people flinging insults at each other. While feedback is good, that's probably not the way to go about it.

On related note, allowing user discussion in feedback, often results in hostility towards people producing feedback. Basically, a community member that is not a developer usually will pick a role of a "white knight" and will fiercely battle any proposition for days.

 

What's particularly wrong with these comments? They are obviously emotional, but are definitely relevant to real issues that a lot of people had with that game.

I think we can all agree that personal threats online are never a good thing, but apart from that, internet comments are meaningless in themselves. It's up to the developer to mine them for any reflection of the truth, and ignore the rest.

On balance, I think any discussion of a game is a good thing. It's not like I have a responsibility to provide a space for it, but if someone wants to do it on a forum somewhere, that's perfectly allright. Having a place to express themselves about something is one way to get people's attention fixed on it.

I certainly hope that I would sooner get people venting about my game than apathetic about it. Strong feelings can be turned into something positive, but when all you hear is crickets, you've got nothing to work with.

 

What? A game is in its twilight phase one year after release? On Steam, where tails can last for years?

Let it suffice to say I don't agree that we can discount it due to it being (merely) one year old.

These comments are mildly negative at best, but they're not going to prevent positive discussion of the games (the last one prompts discussion actually). You're not going to get some sycophantic stream of pure praise for a game anywhere "gamers" congregate.

You're seeing some hyperbole for Cyberpunk but it literally just came out. Discussion should get more grounded with time.

Interesting article. Can't disagree obviously, but near the beginning they outright state that Steam will be one of the last places folks will look for info about your game. They'll see other places like reddit or Twitter where you can't really moderate.

This is it. It's not really about "feedback." It's about a community watering hole. It's about a place where people can talk about your game, and in so doing they get invested.

All the people talking about the Mass Effect and Dragon Age trailers--they're not providing any "feedback" to Bioware. They are feeding off of each other's curiosity and speculation and becoming more invested in the series...es.

Oxygen Not Included has lots and lots of discussion of physics/chemistry-related discussion on its forums. Those people aren't providing feedback to Klei--they're feeding off of each other and getting more invested.

Here in the General Discussion forum, we're not really here to give "feedback" on Unity. We're here to talk about Unity (game dev)-related subjects, and in so doing perhaps we find ourselves more invested in Unity. Same for Game Design and probably a couple other subforums (though since Unity is a tool and not a game it's obviously a little different).

Interesting point about community white-knighters.

 

I think for a lot of people, it's the community (which seems to have been decimated lately, but anyways) that keeps them involved with Unity. Especially those people using it more for hobby purposes than whether it's exactly what they need.

Less relevant for games, which are not so much of a service, but at least in the hype stage very useful to have.

 

I don't entirely agree. Yes, it's good that people are talking about your game instead of someone else's game, that means you won the competition for that person's attention. And yes, as a developer there can be valuable feedback in there.

But at the same time... I think that a lot of people are quite needlessly perfectionist about the media they consume, and I don't think that's a positive thing. A few examples:

• People keep telling me how terrible Anthem is. I quite enjoyed the time I spent playing it, and it's been quite a lot of time.
  
• Similarly, I've heard a lot about how unplayably bad Ghost Recon: Breakpoint is. While I completely agree it's nothing like old-school Ghost Recon, I've played a lot of it and it's a fun time in its own right.
• Admittedly I played it after they'd likely patched stuff, but I remember Mass Effect: Andromeda getting an absolute pounding around release time. It was nothing groundbreaking but, again, I had dozens of hours of solid entertainment from that. There were a few moments of "seriously what?!?", but nothing that spoiled the overall experience.
  
• Over in the land of movies, a few Star Wars fans I know have quite vocal dislike of the most recent trilogy. While they're not my favorite movies, again, I enjoyed them when I watched them.

The difference between me and the people complaining? I take each of those things for what they are, where the complainers are comparing them to some mythical perfect thing that doesn't exist and finding them wanting.

I've nothing against criticism, or calling shallow popcorn entertainment what it is, and so on. But a lot of what I see goes way past that. It's as if among some people there's this cultural impetus to always be able to find fault with anything, even when doing so isn't constructive. It just spoils the entertainment for the people who get caught up in that. As developers we can't stop it, but I can understand not wanting to facilitate it.

I think Anthem is a great example of something else I strongly dislike. Bioware wanted to do something different to their last bunch of games, so they did. One of the major complaints from people was simply that it's not narratively similar enough to prior Bioware games. Seriously, are they not allowed to make other types of games now? Other developers can make games which are narrative-lite and focus on the action, but Bioware made some cool RPGs in the past so now they're not ever allowed to do anything else?

Also on Anthem, but probably applicable to all of the above, I think that people might just be expecting too much out of their games in general. Another Anthem complaint is that the content runs out after 40 hours or so. To my mind, if a game has given you 40 hours of entertainment that's a job well done!

To clarify, that's not all the audience's fault. Promise people the world and that's what they'll expect, and at the big end of town developers do generally just keep advertising more and better everything. But for all involved, why does a video game have to be more than a video game?

 

I disagree with the idea that this is needless perfectionism. A world like Star Wars is the type of thing that gets created a few times every century, something so vivid and interesting and compelling that it captures people's attention decades after it was first created. To see it turned into a source of cookie-cutter movies with copied and pasted themes and bland, uninspired characters is depressing at best.

Would I enjoy the movie if it wasn't Star Wars? Maybe if I was on a date and didn't really care. But that's not the point. If someone wants to make bland movies, they can come up with their own stuff (it shouldn't be too hard). They don't need to come along and butcher something carefully crafted and profound just so they can add a few drops of meaning to a dish of tasteless, recycled tropes.

Personally, I can't watch most modern scifi movies. They give me that sort of vaguely sick and uneasy feeling when you chug too much coffee and aren't sure what to do to get it all out of your system. It's like the face of an empty, confused and excessively inward-focused collective imagination staring back at me. And sometimes that bereft imagination even takes form and gleefully pursues the protagonist (in the form of some soulless robot or alien in an unoriginal dystopian world). I suppose these movies can be said to at least reflect some level of symbolic truth.

I know Star Wars isn't the focus of this thread, but as someone who grew up reading tons of 60s and 70s scifi books, watching a good number of movies and shows, and playing scifi games, stuff like Star Wars and Mass Effect means something to me. Not enough to ruin my day when I see something like Andromeda, mind you, but disappointed nonetheless. If I was having a bad day and a game I was looking forward to turned out to be crap, I might even enjoy going on a bit of a rant on some forum.

Because these things are like monuments to human creativity. They are rare, inspirational, they provoke you to think about the future and what kind of person you are. They aren't easy to come by, and once recycled and turned into Macdonalds movies, they never really regain life again.

I've never been much of a Witcher fan, but CD Projekt Red struck me as being the sort of company who dealt with the creation of these kind of fantasies. And so I imagine they have a lot of fans to whom the work they produce means a hell of a lot.

Completely agree. Cyberpunk too is a new IP, so it's not really interfering with something already established. I guess a lot of people these days expect a lot of specific things from the company. But I think each IP needs to be judged on its own.

I used to think the idea of someone trashing something they'd spent 40 hours on was just silly (and in a practical way it is) but games these days have such a shiny finish, and are just so easy to spend your time on, that hours go by and then you're like "did I even enjoy that really?". It's like average beer or Macdonalds. Sure, it's the audience's 'fault' for consuming it, but I don't think they are being disingenuous when they say that something was in fact very average or crap.

Nothing wrong with these games, of course, just that being served one when you expected something else entirely can be rather disappointing.

 

Nothing warrents death threats though. Its a boundry we can not pass

 

Obviously, death threats and having a rant about how bad a game is are not even in the same league.

But this thread isn't just about extremes.

 

You sorta need to dive into the actual thread to see the problem.

Let's take a look at the 4th one.
"Some of you go around acting like there is nothing wrong with the game i hope some of you start waking up."

That's a bait. To enrage people have some of them start defending the game while others will attack them, then there will be a hundred pages of insults. I don't believe I need to explain why this is a bait, right?

The most outrageous stuff by now has been cut and deleted, but I feel really sorry for whoever had to wade through piles of stuff that existed there on day one.

There is a problem though - this day, most of the time, discussions do not occur. People instead assert their opinion ("I am right!"), and instead of arguments go for ad-hominem immediately ("you disagree with me, therefore you're stupid, and sooo superior to you, you pathetic pleb!"). This seems to be becomingly alarmingly common, and is almost becoming the norm. Additionally array of topics that cause people to go personal has grown significantly. They blow a gasked over anything.

While you do not have responsibility to provide space for that, if you have space for it, it becomes associated with your product, and if you do not have a space for it, some people will still think that you're OBLIGED to provide it, OBLIGED to cater to their needs and if you do not do that, they may start sending death threats. (That ooblets story. Sheesh....)

Additionally, I do not believe a discussion is inherently good thing.

Why the heck not. They're obviously milking it with F2P-like mechanic, and obviously there are people not liking it. So wouldn't be surprisingfor RDR2 to croak in one more year. Not the most likely event, but wouldn't be surprising.

 

Well, I guess we see creative things differently. For me, the more that something I create makes somebody feel deeply about it, the better. It's not like that's my goal specifically, but it's what tends to happen when you get things right.

I'm not too bothered by discussion that's all over the place. I do agree that some threads just turn to complete bs, but it's worth having a few of those for the others that don't.

 

There's no guarantee that person posting hostile threads on a forum are feeling deeply about the actual game being discussed. They may be trying to "feed" off the thread by trolling the populace, or might hate company and not the game. Or they might not have played the game but are spewing hatred over something they heard about it. That happens too. Steam forums have that feature where a person who actually purchased the game has a little mouse icon on the forum of that game when they post. A lot of bait thread starters do not have the game, and have not bought it.

 

While overall I support open discussion, I think there's a salient point in here about people criticizing things that don't even affect their enjoyment of the game. I don't have a problem with it overall but people can go overboard. Unfortunately however, it's difficult to know if someone was really genuinely taken out of the experience by something technical in Andromeda, or if they're just complaining.

Also, with regards to Anthem, I think the "too short" complaint is due to its designation as a GAAS "looter shooter," a "genre" or whatever that to my understanding is expected to be played over months rather than days like most games.

But not with regards to the community, which was my focus (providing an example of another non-Cyberpunk game released recently enough to still have a reasonably sized community which we could examine for signs of hostility).

 

Hi there! Just a 2 cents.

''Also on Anthem, but probably applicable to all of the above, I think that people might just be expecting too much out of their games in general. Another Anthem complaint is that the content runs out after 40 hours or so. To my mind, if a game has given you 40 hours of entertainment that's a job well done!

To clarify, that's not all the audience's fault. Promise people the world and that's what they'll expect, and at the big end of town developers do generally just keep advertising more and better everything. But for all involved, why does a video game have to be more than a video game?''

That is a good observation, I believe that too.

I believe it is even not might just be expecting too much out of their games in general - They Expect.. too much out of their games; not much a probability, it's a fact/an assured thing now. I even included myself in that; 'we' (most people, I know generalizing is not good but I think a lot of people see that way) want the best and the rest forget it (because so few hours, so few dollars to give; so extreme selection int he making - we are very good a Selecting, selecting the best, selecting almost nothing out of a giant mass of games); It's great, gives choice/selection to find what they truly wants.

And, what they truly want, is a Lot, a lots in terms of quality/polish/scope etc...expecting so much and they do (and so do I, but I realize it and am doing my best to give a chance to smaller games) they 'weed through it'...until find the 'perfect gem' in a mass of 'mee too average games that want my money/time/attention'. Or many people don't even bother, they go for what they know, that means games that have been marketed 'large and wide/plastered everywhere'; like Cyberpunk 2077 - sold 8 million copies...I hear people say: ''It was a Disaster....the old console versions ran at 10fps...''...no, the disaster is Not seeing ..that this a Success, in any way shape or form you look at it. Selling 8 million copies (for a AAA is 'alright') is in no way shape or form a disaster (if talking a a small indie; for a AAA it's ok/just enough to recoup costs). I don't know how many of these 8 million copies were refunded, but I am guessing in the 10-25% refun; so that is still 5 million or so copies sold and not refunded. Now people are saying :''These AAA devs are cunning, they release a crapbuggy game...get the money/satisfy the investors/shareholders...make back/recoup their budget costs...and make profit...and Just Now...'say sorry' they will 'fix it after...release', they are tricksters/conpeople/ dishonest charlatans that are saying truth/omitting info of the product to make an informed decision as customer (to not get ripped off)...in effect..they got our money releasing this turkey and we are the fools for 'buying it'''. It's why people say : ''Don't preorder, don't buy Day 1...wait that tthings are fixed; or.. be a fool and get it right away/fall for the hype; but 60$ down the drain''.
With that said, that is how much and how far I am willing to give credit to customers..the bucks stops there.

People want the moon now, and as you said, they have been conditioned (I include myself) to 'perfection' in games; with AAA budgets and now AAAA game (more than triple a- Quadruple A), it's unsustainable and 'skyhigh' polish/scope ...that Is What Is wanted...and that is the Fault of 'Allowing It'...and saying 'That is the Standard Today'...

And customers 'buy it'/want it/ask it..and then they scream like baby if don't get it...again I include myself in that and use 'the old mirror' (to do introspection) and not be a hypocrite. I know that we all (most all) wish great polished, bugfree, immense scope games that are unique and 'experiences' like never...

But, all that, is not free, is not free to make and is ...extremely hard and long to do. People are saying: ''Cyberpunk 2077 was pushed back 15 times...and the game is still buggy and unfinished''....

What do you want??? You Ask for The Moon....they can't give the moon, Read Dead Redemption 2 ridiculous, most Ubisoft games have what 5000s people working on the game?...like 'come on'...

there is expecting...and then there is, Expecting...too much. The moon/perfection.

It does not exist. This AAA and now AAAA level is unreachable, unattainable, unsustainable...maybe we need to go back to the old days of B-games/AA or A games...mid-games...the middle level has disappeared because games are devalued/devaluing (worth nothing - sold for 50c or Free 2 play and Free to 'Rip You of a Salary' because people think game devs work for 4 cents/hour wage and Only should be given 'donations' out of kindness of their heart) and are a dime a dozen (sold for a dime), zillion of mobile games (most are free, imagine, great for players, not so great for makers trying to live and not starve), zillion of Steam games...ridiculous competition vying for $ and minutes of player. Player is So Spoiled..so so soooo. Gâté pourri (in my language) 'spoiled senseless/rotten'.

Democratizing game development/game making made barrier entry smaller, thus anyone could make games but not anyone good at it/final product may suffer and consumer good judge/honed selection..will select it. for trash bin. And in doing so, games industry and games themselves saw 'devaluation'...games made by millions...but games sold for cents...or free. The freeness and 'race to the bottom' is both a blessing (for democratizing helping anyone making game) but a curse too (in disguise) for Everyone is dependent 'of money' to survive/not starve...but So Few Dollars in the industry 'to give' to select few people/game makers. In effect it is a problem of 'supply/offer vs demand/want'. There is just more games now..than people to pay for them/play them. Hence, a player has an overabundance (adn a mega Steam backlog of unplayed 'humblebundle 1 cent games') of games...this makes selection happen. Ultra-selection, ultra-competition for us making games. It is it same thing in music...we so many music artists giving away their music free altoghere - just for reconnaissance/to 'get know/to know he/she exists as music creator'...music songs are sold for nothing because a Trillion music songs...much more than number of people to 'hear them all/pay for all of them'. But I am seeing a kind of 'two extremes'...with maybe a in between...(with subscription model/GAAS games as a service, that you don't own but pay monthly for a service...to be able to play them, you don't own the product if online shuts down you lose the game unless it is offline playable and can keep the data/not stream the game like Google Stadia streaming gaming platform).

Because wer are so spoiled with so much 'greatness' in games now, it's a golden age for gamers/players...and 'sort of' of a golden age for game makers; specifically, the big ones, AAA, AAAAs..less so the small ones/indies. We strruggling. People will weed out eevrything and go for the best/consumer wants satisfaction and value, that means elimination of 99% of games and go for that 1%; which are AAA games. People don't have the time, heck even the 'strength' 'to go through' small games, cause they look crap and amateur made, just read the commments it'S always that...but they wil say : ''Indie games shine by their creativity and uniqueness...''...now go see that total number of copies sold of that indie game...and weep. I am sad when I go on a Steam page of a small gem indie game and it has a grand total of 12 reviews on the game..i know this game sold nothing despite 12 Perfect 10/10 reviews.

Compare that to AAA games selling zillion copies (and Cyberpunk is a polarizing reviews - it has 40,000 Steam Negative Reviews and 180,000 Positive reviews...as Eminem said once: ''I prefer being hated then ignored''..cause there is nothing worse than being ignored in total indifference/apathy and 'just don'T exist'...geting people to say Bad or Good of your game = Marketing - (more 'total') Copies Sold (even if more refunded too).
and sure enough marketing is the largest reason why and indies can't market as huge as that - which makes them at disadvantage; it's a money privilege; with the money you can get teh marketing; no money much harder to 'get viewer on social platforms to see you/that your game exists'.

As for 'people giving angsty/angry' reviews....we have no choice to not engage (too much let's say) and ignore. I read others and they relate/say : ''I spoke to devs...and most veteran devs Ignore 99% of what is said about them/their game...just ignore it..it's not being condescending..it's protecting your sanity (cause too many crazies) and 'the death threats' on their reviews'...people are so fan/fandom of a game that tehy may say things they regret online...they would never say that in real life (like daeth threats - over a...video game). But such are our times, Games are the Books of the last 1000 years...people 'look up' to them and rever them (to a fault and even to insanity/crazyness; just check the movie Robert De Niro and Wesley Snipes: 'The Fan' (baseball fan...maybe 'too fan' of 'his baseball player'); it'S a curse and a blessing. And as others said, many people post their opinion - like it is a Fact and 'objective/subjectibe' 'Finality' of the 'matter' of the game...if someone has a different opinion they tell them to go effinn...theirself and that the others opinoins are Factually Wrong (as if Their Opinion is the Correct 1 and a Fact../'final say' and nobody can contradict it..or else - death threats). Internet has become like and social media..is indirectly responsible (along with anonymity/privacy of spouting anyitnhg online with no repercussion) it meant many people would act in disrespectable way and just say stuff that floors you...but you had to take it 'with a grain of salt'..it's often trollish/kidding (sarcastically) or well sometimes idiocy. Like some people 'get off' of it, like a rush and like 'to trigger' others 'get a response' this feeds the ego feeds the machine and feeds the 'twitter/tweets' click bait(ing). IT's a money machine, keep the twitter drama going, get website traffic, make click money.

Just a 2 cents.

 

Dude you really need to learn how to write more concisely on the forums. That comment is larger than most blog posts It sort of puts you off reading it when its so much text that is not broken up by much, and the paragraphs are huge!

 

If that is two cents, how much is a dollar?

 

Forums always bring more "negativity" than "positivity". People post way more often to disagree than agree.

People enjoying the game are less likely to waste time ranting about how great it is, because they are playing the game. People angry with the game, don't want to play it, they want to rant.

This can give a skewed version of public sentiment, much like people may assume the regulars at a forum are the actual voice of the community the forum caters to, when in reality, they are the biggest navel gazers of the community.

 

At risk of an off-topic tangent, I think a lot of people are seeing original Star Wars through rose tinted glasses.

Well, this is precisely what I'm talking about. Partly because not every piece of media can be a meaningful "monument", and having that as the expectation is unrealistic at best.

And partly because in many cases, no, it's just a piece of entertainment. Believe it or not I didn't want Andromeda to rock me to my core and make me think about my future and who I am and <whatever>, even though I love that stuff. Sometimes that's what I want, but it's not what I was looking for when I went into Andromeda, and they never suggested to me that that's what it was. I wanted some fun times captaining a space ship, and that's what I got, and I was happy despite its flaws.

I agree that not all entertainment should be popcorn entertainment, but it's ok for some of it to be that.

There are also complaints about the quality of what's there, but that's not what I'm picking on here. I'm specifically picking on the complaints about the length. That 40 hours for the price of a video game is somehow not good enough.

@EternalAmbiguity has covered a part of that with reference to looter-shooter expectations, that they're games which people expect to revisit for months and that doing so just got boring. I still have reservations about even that, though. Sure, it failed to compete with Destiny and co., but is it reasonable for us to expect that every game meets those same, absurdly high standards?

 

IMO .. there is nothing more satisfying in context than grandstanding and tailwalking trolls across the pond for thread participants amusement. We will never be rid of them but if they can be used as fodder in your humor cannon it makes them ineffective and impotent as the level boss of the thread.

 

Yes, it's perfectly normal to hold a studio like CD Projekt Red to high standards. It's perfectly normal to be turned off by unimaginative movie producers butchering the best scifi stories of the previous century because they know that they aren't capable of making anything original worth watching. It's perfectly normal to value something valuable, and not want it turned into airport terminal entertainment.
We live in an age where all the stories and works of art that people still value are being recycled into trash entertainment at an incredible rate to cover the gaping hole where imagination and craft used to exist.
I'm not someone who is stuck in the past, and I would be happy to let them meet their (albeit pathetic and unceremonious) end. But nothing has come to replace them, and surely wrecking the best things from the past is not the best way to propel yourself into a good future.
As far as games are concerned, it is disappointing to say the least what has happened to the most creative studios. Bioware represented a certain type of game, and now, first the studio and then the IP gets dissolved and remixed in the service of trash entertainment. I'm not going to comment on cyberpunk since I'm not really familiar with either it or the studios past, but it seems like people expected a lot more. They should be held to a high standard! In fact there's not enough of a standard in games, period. We already have truckloads of substandard, recycled junk, how about let's start expecting a lot more! Especially from one of the last bastions of immersive, story driven RPGs.
There's no place for personal threats, but rioting on the forum when you've been served a dud after ten years in the oven by your favorite studio is just what any red blooded human being would do.