Why can't people accept a popular game isn't for them instead of trying to find flaws in it?
- Thread starter Leo
- Start date
I'm more curious why people hate that others find flaws in games. No game is perfect, every game has flaws, some people might be bothered by it more than others. This is a non issue. Discourse surrounding video games entails both positive and negative. Far too many people try to diminish criticism here because they like the game being criticized. And I'm not sure why because it shouldn't be affecting your enjoyment of the game.
There is a litany of reasons for game criticism - some shit and petty while others are people wrestling with a game they like or want to like.
It's how the criticism is delivered that really matters.
You can get an idea for the poster's intention behind the criticism from their delivery/tone/words they choose.
It's how the criticism is delivered that really matters.
You can get an idea for the poster's intention behind the criticism from their delivery/tone/words they choose.
This seems like a small thing, but it's actually related to a much uglier trait of our modern-day tech-driven businesses:
The big tech companies that design and operate the way the internet works have decided that the best way to make the internet profitable is to make everyone feel as though their individual voice matters and can effect real change in the world. The "secret sauce" of the tech industry is that tech companies do everything they can to convince individual consumers that the world and everything in it (including games) should be perfectly tailored to them and only them, and if something doesn't cater to an individual conusmer, the tech industry also has created tools (forums, social media, doxxing, etc.) for people to insist loudly that the world should be perfectly tailored to them and only them.
Sure, we could blame "people" for acting like "entitled brats," but the fact of the matter is that the modern internet was built deliberately to make people feel this way. It drives me nuts whenever I see game publishers or developers or journalists complaining about "entitled gamers," when if they stared in the mirror for half a second, they would see that it was the tech industry--including game publishers and development studios--that almost single-handedly created our current culture (and political climate) of entitlement and instant gratification. The tech industry created this monster, but now that same industry is wringing its hands about what to do about the very monster they themselves created (and continue to create and feed).
The answer isn't to tell people to stop insisting that all games should be made for only them. People are just doing what they've been empowered to do with the technology given to them. The real answer is to tell tech companies to stop basing every new technology on "empowering consumers." Seriously, almost every major advance in consumer technology in the last decade has been designed to 1) create our own customizable information ecosystem, 2) produce our own individualized content, and 3) voice our opinions about about numbers 1 and 2.
So, no, I don't really blame "people" for being entitled a-holes as much as I blame the tech industry for enabling and encouraging people to be entitled a-holes. This is as true of contemporary politics as it is of entertainment media.
The big tech companies that design and operate the way the internet works have decided that the best way to make the internet profitable is to make everyone feel as though their individual voice matters and can effect real change in the world. The "secret sauce" of the tech industry is that tech companies do everything they can to convince individual consumers that the world and everything in it (including games) should be perfectly tailored to them and only them, and if something doesn't cater to an individual conusmer, the tech industry also has created tools (forums, social media, doxxing, etc.) for people to insist loudly that the world should be perfectly tailored to them and only them.
Sure, we could blame "people" for acting like "entitled brats," but the fact of the matter is that the modern internet was built deliberately to make people feel this way. It drives me nuts whenever I see game publishers or developers or journalists complaining about "entitled gamers," when if they stared in the mirror for half a second, they would see that it was the tech industry--including game publishers and development studios--that almost single-handedly created our current culture (and political climate) of entitlement and instant gratification. The tech industry created this monster, but now that same industry is wringing its hands about what to do about the very monster they themselves created (and continue to create and feed).
The answer isn't to tell people to stop insisting that all games should be made for only them. People are just doing what they've been empowered to do with the technology given to them. The real answer is to tell tech companies to stop basing every new technology on "empowering consumers." Seriously, almost every major advance in consumer technology in the last decade has been designed to 1) create our own customizable information ecosystem, 2) produce our own individualized content, and 3) voice our opinions about about numbers 1 and 2.
So, no, I don't really blame "people" for being entitled a-holes as much as I blame the tech industry for enabling and encouraging people to be entitled a-holes. This is as true of contemporary politics as it is of entertainment media.
Last edited:
It seems to me like a lot of people are missing the point of this topic. I'm not reading it as saying that people shouldn't criticize popular games or that they can't have flaws, but rather that a lot of the criticism that gets directed at games nowadays isn't really identifying flaws so much as asking games to be something they're not.
I agree for the most part with everything op is saying but i dont really see the argument being the same for handheld games. When op says...
"Handheld games (why isn't it on consoles?). To me, it sounds very dismissive of other people's tastes and preferences. There are other games that you can enjoy without depriving people of something that they enjoy. Go play something else instead."
....this doesnt really apply to your argument at large. Those asking for some handheld games on console are not asking for the game to be fundamentally changed, they just want access to it on more platforms. I could understand if the game is fundamentally changed by taking the mobile aspect away from it (pokemon go)but this is often not the case. Additionally, someone having access to a game on one platform doesnt diminish somebody elses enjoyment of that same game on a different platform. If i play pokemon yellow on my snes through the gameboy cartidge adapter i dont diminish the experience for others playing it on their og gameboy colors.
To me it is far more dismissive to say "go play something else" to somebody who wants a particular handheld game on console than it is to suggest changes for games in the way op suggested.
"Handheld games (why isn't it on consoles?). To me, it sounds very dismissive of other people's tastes and preferences. There are other games that you can enjoy without depriving people of something that they enjoy. Go play something else instead."
....this doesnt really apply to your argument at large. Those asking for some handheld games on console are not asking for the game to be fundamentally changed, they just want access to it on more platforms. I could understand if the game is fundamentally changed by taking the mobile aspect away from it (pokemon go)but this is often not the case. Additionally, someone having access to a game on one platform doesnt diminish somebody elses enjoyment of that same game on a different platform. If i play pokemon yellow on my snes through the gameboy cartidge adapter i dont diminish the experience for others playing it on their og gameboy colors.
To me it is far more dismissive to say "go play something else" to somebody who wants a particular handheld game on console than it is to suggest changes for games in the way op suggested.
It's definitely sometimes true that people can be basically asking for something to become a fundamentally different game, but it's also possible to take this mindset way too far to where they're just trying to shut down criticism.
Pokémon is a good example of this. There is a long and storied history of people just wanting it to be something different, but it's turned around recently with Let's Go being the perfect storm of marketing trying to have it's cake and eat it too over the topic of whether the game is mainline, exacerbated by the game having a "Metroid Prime: Federation Force" style problem where recent franchise history is casting an otherwise inoffensive game in a negative light. People often try to shut down criticism of Let's Go by claiming it's "not for me" as someone who's generally a fan of the actual mainline games, but in doing so they're trying to paint the game in a different light than it's own developer is doing. While one could argue that might be fairer to judge Let's Go in a vacuum, Game Freak and TPC themselves set up a hostile environment for this game from day one and the game can't really be separated from it at this point.
Pokémon is a good example of this. There is a long and storied history of people just wanting it to be something different, but it's turned around recently with Let's Go being the perfect storm of marketing trying to have it's cake and eat it too over the topic of whether the game is mainline, exacerbated by the game having a "Metroid Prime: Federation Force" style problem where recent franchise history is casting an otherwise inoffensive game in a negative light. People often try to shut down criticism of Let's Go by claiming it's "not for me" as someone who's generally a fan of the actual mainline games, but in doing so they're trying to paint the game in a different light than it's own developer is doing. While one could argue that might be fairer to judge Let's Go in a vacuum, Game Freak and TPC themselves set up a hostile environment for this game from day one and the game can't really be separated from it at this point.
Last edited:
This perspective to me seemed like a new phenomenon.
People, even nerds who love particular franchises are more than aware of the flaws that a genre has. This idea of surrounding yourself with fans of a genre just doesn't make much sense IMHO. I get that you don't like downers, though I think it's more than they have negative complaints with the game and it's the easiest way to communicate it. I like hearing the negative sides of a game because it means that they were honest and still like it
I'm a hypocrite though, because I criticise games I see. But really, more censorship sounds like is the only practical way to handle people who don't like genres.
People, even nerds who love particular franchises are more than aware of the flaws that a genre has. This idea of surrounding yourself with fans of a genre just doesn't make much sense IMHO. I get that you don't like downers, though I think it's more than they have negative complaints with the game and it's the easiest way to communicate it. I like hearing the negative sides of a game because it means that they were honest and still like it
I'm a hypocrite though, because I criticise games I see. But really, more censorship sounds like is the only practical way to handle people who don't like genres.
Well I think there is some fair criticism you can lobby at plenty of successful popular franchises. I think it's fine to bring it up, especially if you don't try to disparage other people that do like it. I'm not a fan of pretty much every Rockstar game, but I don't think people are dumb or worse than me because they enjoy it.
I also think there is plenty of criticism to offer toward a game that wouldn't radically change what it is like those weird people asking for action combat in a turn-based game, when you can do either system well depending on design choices. I love some action/RPG combat, but turn-based combat in XCOM 2 and Divinity: Original Sin 2 is incredible.
I also think there is plenty of criticism to offer toward a game that wouldn't radically change what it is like those weird people asking for action combat in a turn-based game, when you can do either system well depending on design choices. I love some action/RPG combat, but turn-based combat in XCOM 2 and Divinity: Original Sin 2 is incredible.
For me, it's more seeing people say that a popular, or any, game not being for them means it's terrible.
Why does this only apply to popular games? Doesn't mean there aren't games that do it better, doesn't mean everyone is gonna like it. You're acting like people gotta bring out the magnifying glass on any popular game you like to find flaws. Every game has flaws.
Because many people think every game should appeal to them and every game should have something in it they like and if it doesn't that is a flaw in the game.
There's plenty of games I've looked at and played and said "This seems like a great game but it just isn't for me." without feeling the need to take a massive dump on it.
There's plenty of games I've looked at and played and said "This seems like a great game but it just isn't for me." without feeling the need to take a massive dump on it.
So many replies this this thread are basically people saying "i think it's great that ppl whose only opinion is something negative are enthusiastic about sharing these opinions." I don't think OP is objecting to ppl having opinions different from his own, it's that ppl (especially on Resetera) post dozens of negative threads a day. They're not constructive criticism, they're mostly "I prefer X game, and this game is bad bc it's not like X."
I've been asking myself the same question. Why do ppl feel the need to foster discussion about how much they dislike something? When 10 ppl start a thread about how they enjoy Ni No Kuni, why do you feel the need to interject? In real life, you'd never interrupt a conversation to tell ppl having a good time that you dislike their topic of choice. Online, it feels like half of the discussion is someone shitting on something.
I've been asking myself the same question. Why do ppl feel the need to foster discussion about how much they dislike something? When 10 ppl start a thread about how they enjoy Ni No Kuni, why do you feel the need to interject? In real life, you'd never interrupt a conversation to tell ppl having a good time that you dislike their topic of choice. Online, it feels like half of the discussion is someone shitting on something.
But why does it bother you so much if there's someone voicing an opinion that just happened to be different than yours?
I'm all for curbing drive-by postings, flaming, trolling or console wars type of posting but I just don't think an echo chamber type of thread is what we need ever.
Like, if I create a thread on how much I love Shadow of Colossus I would expect some members to post how much they didn't like x or y element about the game, etc and that is totally fine.
I think it's wrong to believe that quality discussion about one's hobbies and interests always requires contributions from ppl who just want to tell you that they dislike your hobby/interest. Ppl disagree with me all the time, and I don't have an issue with it. Especially when I say something out loud that I know is an unpopular opinion. If someone posts a thread titled "Sonic is the best platformer of all time," then it's expected for ppl to chime in with a variety of viewpoints.
In your example thread though, what is the value of someone who does not love SotC telling you that they think the animation is garbage and the combat is worse than Bad Dudes? What makes a person see your thread title "Shadow of the Colossus Gives Me Joy", enter that thread, and post "meh, I thought the story was shit and the textures were muddy?" If someone says they liked the game, but wished it included X or Y thing, then that would at least be in the spirit of the thread. A large percentage of posts on this site ignore these different contexts, and I don't understand the motivation.
This does come off as a bit hypocritical, no?
I think it's weird telling people to not express opinions about popular games if they've tried them. I put 10-15 hours into Xenoblade Chronicles 2 and thought it was pretty bad, and when I posted about it on here we had a pretty fun chat about it; it wasn't people saying "well that's the series lmao", but some respectful agreement or disagreement.
Taste all comes down to what we want out of a game, and I don't really see the issue of me saying "I think xx game would better if it was xx." And to be honest a lot of the time this is putting feelers out to see if anyone agrees with me, because when a 90+ Metascore game totally flops with me it definitely makes me curious why.
I shouldn't be harming your enjoyment if I express my disappointment in it, and I feel like it speaks more to your own bizarre insecurities if you can't deal with people saying they don't like a game.
Gamers are comically terrible at dealing with criticism, it's honestly a very interesting phenomenon. It's not to say it doesn't happen in other mediums, but giving a hyped game a bad review is a sure way to enrage people.
Idk maybe because they genuinely think the game is bad/flawed? Just because something is popular doesn't mean anything. Popularity isn't indicative of quality.
I don't want to pigeonhole too much but it comes back to some people, especially in nerdy fandoms, making the pop-culture they consume a deeply entrenched part of their personal identity rather than something they simply enjoy. As such, if you attack it, you're apparently attacking them.
Platform wars and juvenile insecurity, OP.
People need to be validated and when they find that their take doesn't align with a popular opinion it makes them feel alienated and thus they try to carve out a small echoe chamber of buddies for themselves by wasting their time trying to convince others that their opinion is the correct one.
You might say its a form of narcisism, but based on an internal insecurity.
People need to be validated and when they find that their take doesn't align with a popular opinion it makes them feel alienated and thus they try to carve out a small echoe chamber of buddies for themselves by wasting their time trying to convince others that their opinion is the correct one.
You might say its a form of narcisism, but based on an internal insecurity.
Popularity usually correlates very strongly with quality. Thus statistically you're quite wrong.
There are always of course exceptions to the rule but the exception doesn't invalidate the rule.
Dissect?
The vast majority of criticism I read on the internet is extremely lazy. That is true of whether or not it applies to games, music or movies.
Whether its praise or criticism I want the person to have their own voice instead of just repeating what they heard on some YT reviews or on message boards.
There is no rule. There is no direct correlation between popularity and quality. There is no objective metric for this.
People mistakenly believe enjoyment and quality are intrinsically intwined. It is a hard thing to get past, it took me disliking both RDR and GTA, yet enjoying LA Noire to realize as much.
A way to see it is: Schindler's List is an extremely well made film, that is of the highest quality. But chances are it is not a film you enjoy watching. Now in gaming this distinction is made harder since game play is involved. If you can recognize you are not enjoying the game play, but it is not bad, you can get past that hurdle.
A way to see it is: Schindler's List is an extremely well made film, that is of the highest quality. But chances are it is not a film you enjoy watching. Now in gaming this distinction is made harder since game play is involved. If you can recognize you are not enjoying the game play, but it is not bad, you can get past that hurdle.
I actually appreciate well reasoned criticism of popular games. Issues arise when people post lazy drive by hot takes with no reasonable backing and pop smoke.
Yeah, this makes sense. "I love this game and it's a masterpiece and its creator is a genius and you're insulting me by implying otherwise" is a very common thing among gamers.
The amount of people missing the point is nuts. People can't tell the difference between a flaw and a not actually liking a genre of game. It's infuriating.
It's the exact same thing happening with movie criticism. People will claim that a movie is full of plot holes, as a way of framing their subjective opinion as an objective truth. There was a great Moviebob piece about it here.
So when you're going to criticize a game, take a step back and think "is this done poorly, or do I just not like features like this when they're done well? If someone made a thread about game mechanics you never like, would I post there and list this mechanic? If so, maybe the game isn't flawed, I just don't like it." Looking at you, weapons breaking in. BotW.
It's the exact same thing happening with movie criticism. People will claim that a movie is full of plot holes, as a way of framing their subjective opinion as an objective truth. There was a great Moviebob piece about it here.
So when you're going to criticize a game, take a step back and think "is this done poorly, or do I just not like features like this when they're done well? If someone made a thread about game mechanics you never like, would I post there and list this mechanic? If so, maybe the game isn't flawed, I just don't like it." Looking at you, weapons breaking in. BotW.
If you were to look into it, I bet most of the people complaining about games online have never even played them. They are simply jumping on the back of other peoples negative opinions to justify them either not buying it (sometimes because they're kids and / or unemployed and can't afford it) or because it dares to compete with one of their (usually exclusive) titles.
I've been spending less time on gaming forums and more time playing games and I've never had more fun. Fuck the haters :p
I've been spending less time on gaming forums and more time playing games and I've never had more fun. Fuck the haters :p
Ah ah, there're like 10 guys really doing it, most of the time it's a lazy hot take or something without much substance.
It doesn't really annoy me though, I suppose most of those posters are young people. Now, for the few one past their 30/40 and still doing that, well.... ^^
But what if a gsmes design doesn't suck, you just don't like it? Then what? If I ran into every thread about very technical fighting games or realistic car racers and started claiming that game X or game Y has a serious flaw, I'd be lying to myself. I can't tell a good game in those genres from a bad one, because they're not for me.
When a game gets popular enough, the entitlement kicks in. People start crawling out of the woodwork to complain about the video game equivalent of plotholes: nitpicks that are used to cover up the truth, which is that the game isn't for you.
I'm not saying I can always tell legitimate criticism from entitlement based nit picking, but it's usually obvious.
What an absurd position to take. The majority of people criticizing a game just haven't played it? The lengths people go to to try and diminish criticism of anything they like here is baffling.
U CnAt ReAsONaBlY CrItIcIzE My FaV GaMe
If I don't like it wouldn't that inherently mean I think it "sucks"? I don't get this objective outlook to quality. "It's good, I just don't like it" makes no sense.
If people are just running into threads yelling "This sucks!!!" and running away then yeah that's pretty lame. I don't get the impression we have an epidemic of that though. People on this board are pretty much always willing to describe why they don't like something.
I think its fine, but I do think that most people just miss the point of the games they are citicizing.
For example, the BotW criticisms of not enough enemy variety and the Divine Beasts looking the same are valid because they enhance the game in what its trying to do, but something like story wasnt good enough just falls flat because it goes against the point of the game.
For example, the BotW criticisms of not enough enemy variety and the Divine Beasts looking the same are valid because they enhance the game in what its trying to do, but something like story wasnt good enough just falls flat because it goes against the point of the game.
This. If people were posting negative threads about popular games that went into detail about what the game is trying to do, what audience it's trying to cater to, what kind of genre it is, along with their own background and greater understanding of the culture that game inhabits, and did so in a compelling, informative, and reasonable way, then there would be no problem. While we occasionally get threads like that, they mostly boil down to "Game X is popular but it isn't what I wanted so I don't think it's good," or "Game Y has certain design elements or is indicative of recent design trends that I don't like, so I don't think it's good."
Those, by the way, are absolutely valid opinions to hold and to share, but I wouldn't call it necessarily good or insightful criticism. Criticism is about more than just saying what you think is good or bad.
As someone who has opinions that very often don't align with the general "hardcore" gamer consensus, I find the opposite to be true as well. I'm not allowed to air my problems with a popular game without being insulted or told why my opinion is wrong. This makes "discussions" difficult to have on what is supposed to be a "discussion" forum. I just avoid those types of conversations nowadays (at least online).
As someone who brought up discussion around Mario Odyssey not to long ago, it's a game that I still see a lot of flaw in, but being able to read and have some discussion around why people liked it gave me perspective on it that I hadn't seen before. I guess it depends on how you approach it. When it comes to a lot of games, I'll be a miserable pile of shit that'll pick and pull everything from it that's wrong and sit with those flaws and never look at the good, but I'd rather have an open discussion around why people like it. I like to know what people find redeeming about it, what they enjoyed, their experiences. I'm incredibly critical by nature, but seeing how/why people enjoyed a thing makes me happy. Seeing others enjoy something, understanding why they enjoy it makes me happy. I like the passion people can have towards a game and can appreciate it, even if I don't see it at first because of my own fogged lens on a piece of media.
I think the issue most if the time is who, where and when is posted.
Did that user that hasn't played VR, hasn't played Astro Bot Rescue mission really needed to post comparisons and videos as to why the game is not as good as Mario 64 at the (overall positive and highly reviewed) review thread? Despite the fact that he hasn't played the game? Basing everything on Youtube videos?
If a thread title is "new [INSERT GAME HERE] info and screens", and an user enters to remind everyone how much he doesn't like the game and how he has no intentions on buying it, does that add anything to the discussion?
Like, some just like making noise and the attention rather than actual care of anything. And it goes both ways. Those that really like something and overhype it, post new threads despite the OTs, etc.
They claim is a discussion forum, but are not looking for discussion and more to just confirmation. Liking and not liking stuff is fine. But the need some have about seeing a thread about how much someone loves a game and going there, read some and reply about how wrong the person was because it sucks, makes sound many like masochists. But then again, many here play games they hate to get achievements, so it seems normal. :p
Did that user that hasn't played VR, hasn't played Astro Bot Rescue mission really needed to post comparisons and videos as to why the game is not as good as Mario 64 at the (overall positive and highly reviewed) review thread? Despite the fact that he hasn't played the game? Basing everything on Youtube videos?
If a thread title is "new [INSERT GAME HERE] info and screens", and an user enters to remind everyone how much he doesn't like the game and how he has no intentions on buying it, does that add anything to the discussion?
Like, some just like making noise and the attention rather than actual care of anything. And it goes both ways. Those that really like something and overhype it, post new threads despite the OTs, etc.
They claim is a discussion forum, but are not looking for discussion and more to just confirmation. Liking and not liking stuff is fine. But the need some have about seeing a thread about how much someone loves a game and going there, read some and reply about how wrong the person was because it sucks, makes sound many like masochists. But then again, many here play games they hate to get achievements, so it seems normal. :p
Because although there is no objective measure to what constitutes "good" or "bad" when it comes to video games, there are generally accepted standards of quality that can generally be said to be better or worse- performance, art design, "kinaesthetics" or "game feel," writing, UI, direction, pacing, etc. The beauty comes from the interplay of all these elements and how a player, with their own tastes and preferences and background, engages with the finished work. It's not so much about "This is good, you're wrong" as much as it is about "I think this is good, here's why I think that" and vice versa. Video game criticism, design, playing, the whole shebang would be a lot less interesting if it were either "This is objectively good or bad, end of story" or "I like it, you don't, and that's all there is to it." It's the back-and-forth discussion and analysis that's the real point of it all.