Gaming community hostility?

Separately...

On this I agree. I think we differ in what those standards should be based around, though.

I don't think that "my game only had 40 hours of content" is a valid complaint in and of itself, nor that length of games is something that we should be demanding more of. Some games work best when long, others really don't. It should be what is right for the game.

I do think that "I played for 40 hours and I think the developers could have done a lot more with it" is a valid criticism, which I would personally level at some games. For instance, many games include thematic elements I'd love to have seen as fully realised mechanics (settlement building in Fallout and running a resistance cell in Watch Dogs: Legion spring to mind).

I also don't think it's reasonable to demand that any person, studio or franchise be able to consistently turn out "monument" quality stuff. It's self defeating, really. If people could consistently turn out stuff as good as the original Star Wars was in its day then that would become "normal" rather than "monumental" and the scale would be shifted.

But moreover, most "monumental" things are good because they do something unique that happens to work incredibly well, or they bring something existing to a new audience. And, for want of a better analogy, those things are a bit like mining cryptocurrency: every success makes other, future success harder. Once Lucas had introduced mass audiences to the fantasy space opera then anyone else doing the same is no longer original. The more new stuff gets introduced the harder it is to find other new things which also work. And then of those only a small fraction of the best can stand out as "monumental".

I'm getting close to repeating myself here, though,do I may be done with this tangent.

 

Just want to point out that Sony just decided to delist Cyberpunk.

In no world is this merely "gaming community hostility."

 

They delisted it because CDPR pointed everyone at Sony to offer refunds when Sony does not have an official refund policy, so Sony went "well, if we're supposed to deal with this, we won't deal with sales."

So yes, this isn't "merely gaming community hostility," because it isn't that at all. This isn't about hostility, it isn't even about Sony taking a stand against bugs (if it was, it never would have made it past cert. in the first place), but Sony making a business decision largely out of spite because CDPR forced their hand.

Neither CDPR nor Sony are blameless here, but this isn't related to the topic at hand.

 

From what I've heard "cert" is about it not bricking a console, not necessarily less critical bugs, but that's not firsthand experience, so fair enough.

 

I'm not sure I'd even call it "spite". If a game's own developer thinks their product warrants carte blanch refunds then I wouldn't want to be endorsing that product by continuing to sell it. I also wouldn't want to further open myself to the responsibility of dealing with mass refunds.

I haven't played the game to know if it's really that bad, but I feel a bit disappointed for the developers who crunched to get it out.

 

And who will probably be crunching from here on out until it is re-released...

 

Cert is also about things like going through the automatic epilepsy tests and running at all. This game was pushed right through and a lot of that is on Sony's end because it was supposed to be a tentpole release.

It's so, so bad. Even on PC it's a total mess.

 

I basically agree, I think the only game I've probably put more than 40 hours into is Skyrim. I usually spend 15 or so, even on games I really like. I am all about cutting out the grind and focusing on a quality experience.

But this is probably a typical complaint based on expectations from the openworld games these days that are promising players the world. Whether the expectations are the studios fault or the fans fault, I don't know.

Yes and no. When you have a reputation, for good or for worse, you are going to be expected to live up to it. But it's more about existing IP than anything else.

Take Bioware for instance. Although Anthem seems boring (not sure, haven't played) and definitely isn't like their previous stuff, it really doesn't bother me what they do with it, as long as they are making some good RPGs - because I do expect good RPG games from them. After all, their tag line is "Creating Worlds of Adventure, Conflict, and Companionship that Inspire You to Become the Hero of Your Story."

But to see Mass Effect Andromeda? Let me tell you my perspective on it, which is (thankfully because I didn't buy it) brief.

...

When it came out, I heard it had issues, animation problems, all that sort of thing. But I was still interested, because the Mass Effect series is one of my favorites. It had to be more interesting and substantial than the rest of the crap out there. So I watched a 'let's play' video on youtube.

It starts out beautifully. The intro is probably the best I've seen in a game. Gripping stuff, evoking a feeling of longing and exploration and adventure .. and danger. So far so good.

And then you meet the characters. A bit of the usual tired cast of stereotypes, but not too bad. I thought the main character had the potential to bring a good story to life.

There's a bit of cutscenes and prep, I can't remember much, a bit boring and bland. But anyway, then you go and land on a planet. Wow! I thought. This should be good. Whatever you find here should be some trilogy-worthy stuff! You've come all the way from another galaxy in cryosleep, about to meet an alien civilization, what are you going to find? How will you respond?

I can't remember the exact sequence of events, but I do remember you go freefalling into some planet like a bunch of Fortnite players who took the wrong 'plane' out of monkey island. Within a minute you're hiding behind some crate popping up and down doing headshots on some alien goons who might as well be the enemy from any other random cover-looter-shooter. Your average mudcrab has more personality that all of the characters on that battlefield put together.

Needless to say I clicked out of the video, and never seriously considered buying the game after that.

...

So my point is, when you've spent years developing a story and world and characters, creating a fanbase of people who love it for specific and obvious reasons, don't dice it up and add it to dog food. They won't like it, and they'll let you know what they think (as they should).

I don't believe this is the case. We are neck-deep in the greatest drought of imagination the world has ever seen, and nowhere is it the case more than scifi. There hasn't been a book since the 80s that could compete with the average novel from the 'golden age of science fiction'. There have been some decent movies, but most of them are just self-indulgent guilt trips (like Avatar) or recycled dystopian tropes where the level of self-obsession of the protagonists is only matched by the emptiness and desolation of the world that they live in. There's nothing hopeful, no big ideas, no lofty dreams. When these movies veer into idealism, it's only one of vague, sweeping contempt for humanity's shortcomings.

Is it really hard to just make a scifi movie with a decent idea? Take Gattaca for instance. Nothing groundbreaking. A bit dystopian. But still something hopeful, about striving to reach what you believe to be your destiny, no matter how difficult it seems. Is it that hard to write a story like that?

Actually the only scifi movie I enjoyed recently, of all things, was the latest Alien movie. The (sub?) plotline about the AI and its struggle with separating its identity from its human creators was well written and well acted. But it was still just a small plot in what is essentially a popcorn horror movie.

As far as the idea of a creation like Star Wars making it hard to follow up, I think it's mainly because anything exceptionally good is difficult to create. But I don't think Star Wars is even particularly original (in plots and themes at least). Most stories, even good ones, are not original. They just don't trash themselves with things that obviously don't work or make sense or are simply boring and uncompelling.

Anyway, I don't want to go way off track here, but I guess my point is that if fans of games and movies want to see real advancement of genres, they will have to hold creators to account, and not just accept whatever crap comes along without saying a word. A crafted, polished, timeless work of imagination is highly valuable to an audience, as is the loyalty of thousands of die-hard fans to a studio, and no one should expect to receive something for nothing.

 

I agree with this as a complaint. What I don't understand is why it's levelled at Andromeda specifically? I thought the same thing with the original Mass Effect back in 2007. Cool light sci-fi RPG with generic characters and utterly paint-by-numbers combat. I didn't play ME 2 or 3 but, based on what I played of the original, when I got to Andromeda (after it'd probably had some patching) I really couldn't see what people were complaining about.

I also hadn't played all the games in the middle, so it had a lot more chance to win me over before it'd outstayed its welcome.

This I agree with, but being hostile / negative / toxic onlin*e doesn't strike me as a constructive way to achieve anything. Even if someone has legitimate points, as soon as they put themselves with the jerks they're going to find it much harder to be taken seriously. It also turns the discussion adversarial, so whomever you're trying to talk to is likely to be more defensive and less open to change.

I suspect that the best way to "complain" about these things starts with what you did for Andromeda: not purchasing it. These businesses are making this stuff with profit as a prime motivator, so if you buy something then whinge about it online... well, they already got what they wanted. Personally, if I felt strongly about it, I'd not buy it and then respectfully tell the developers or publishers why. "You would have got my $80 if..."

* For the sake of clarity, I don't feel that that you're doing any of this.

 

That's fair, but Mass Effect began in a context of war and conflict, and there was an established premise for hostility. It also ramped up the tension by showing you evidence of the cruelty of the enemy.

In Andromeda, it's like they couldn't be bothered with any of that. What's more you arrive in the context of an explorer, a representative of the human race, and they just give you a blaster and some puppets to shoot like it's the only thing you could possibly do. After having these kind of images in the marketing:



And besides Mass Effect developed into more than what the original one offered.

Well, I'm simply not surprised that some gamers are furious about these things. Whether or not they should bother, who knows? I certainly can't blame them.

Of course, there's bs in every community. Not every complaint is made in good faith. Some people just like to tear things apart. But with the current situation in games and movies, I'm not surprised that negativity is rampant.

And I fully agree that gamers should stop buying (and especially pre-ordering) this junk if they don't like it. Pre-ordering is a generous thing to do, and goodwill shouldn't be wasted. I don't think complaints will make any difference whatsoever unless people back it up with their wallets.

 

What does this have to do with anything?

It's above average, but not witcher 3. Lots and lots of wasted potential. They also backpedaled on many things they wanted to do. Watchdogs 2 was worse, though.

I also enjoyed Cyberpunk 2077 more than GTA 5 and RDR2 (which I hated).

It is highly likely that developers tried to bite off more than they could chew. All things considered, though, they're taking direction of Rockstar. Rockstar currently produces games with awful/clunky/bad mechanics, but pour a lot of money into presentation. Basically, they create beautiful movie backdrops, that are cool to look at but can't really be interacted with much.

CDPR, however, is generally better than rockstar at producing likeable/life-like characters, but... the quality of character interaction varies throughout cyberpunk 2077. Basically, the stuff you see at the beginning is great. Later down the line there are some moments which feel very forced. Mad me wonder if the good stuff was made earlier.

Andromenda was accused of SJW pandering, and had sub-standard ... everything compared to original trilogy.

The original Mass Effect series had some truly amazing moments in it, however, they screwed the trilogy up with the ending of Mass Effect 3. Which they had to redo. For the record, "truly amazing" here means awe-inspiring, masterpiece level and so on. Not the whole game was like that, of course, but there was a ton of good stuff in it.

 

You've argued earlier in the thread that "Cyberpunk is Not That Bad, so the gaming community is being unnecessarily hostile." I was trying to say "Sony evidently thinks it Is Indeed That Bad, alongside the gaming community, so maybe this game isn't an example of unnecessary hostility" (apart from obviously inexcusable things like personal attacks or threats).

...but Murgilod quickly corrected me.

My understanding is that they were trying to do more with Cyberpunk, with things like the "origins" and some of the original gameplay intentions (like the parkour). That seems like more than just a focus on presentation to me--just them overshooting their abilities.

 

That's not correct.

My point was that over time every single major release appears to be met with amount of hostility that borders insanity, and as the time goes, the situation appears to be getting worse. With cyberpunk being an example of that happening.

That's the exact thing I said - "bit more off than they could chew".
And the focus on presentation is there, given the amount of attention paid to interacting with story characters, coupled with oversights in mechanics.

 

Okay then, my bad.

I just don't see how you can say they're "taking the direction of Rockstar" if it's only because they were too ambitious, rather than it being intentional...in any case that's entirely tangential to your original topic and I shouldn't have brought it up.

 

It's not about ambition, it is about approach. Like I said, Rockstar blows a lot of money on presentation, while often using poor mechanics.

In case of Cyberpunk 2077 they also spent a lot of cash on presentation, and there's plenty of awkwardness in mechanics (their weapon stat progression system makes even less sense than witcher 3 mechanics). Hence the simularity. "Presentation first, gameplay last".