Too much whining about gameplay?

[pedroantonio]

I'm aware of the irony of making kind of a rant thread about others' whining, but I'm gonna do it.

Does somebody else feel a bit infuriated by the amount of people (specially people with less than 20 posts or so) who makes threads and posts just to complain about their subjective dislike of game systems?

I'm not talking about bugs complains, those are legitimate, but about the usual:
 

• "Too much pause, I don't like it"
• "Too little pause, I don't like it"
• "Group stealth doesn't allow me to backstab" (a clear signal they haven't read the manual and don't know that sneak attack has nothing to do with being stealthy)
• "The writing is too verbose"
• "The writing is too amateur"
• "I don't like engagement"
• "I want taunts in the game"
• "Game's too easy"
• "Game's too hard"

And so on and so on.

Now, obviously people are free to dislike a game (same as with movies or books) for subjective reasons; but my problem comes when people doesn't differentiate between their subjectivity and game problems that can be objectively proven to exist (aka, systems not working as intented).

A lot of those threads/posts feel like being made by people who haven't put even the minimal effort in reading about the game mechanics, how they work, how they are different from other games. They just seem to assume that everything must work like in the games they have played before, therefore not bothering with reading or learning anything about the game, and when they get stuck in some gameplay mechanic, they made a thread whining about how it "feels wrong", and how it being more to their liking would be "a design improvement".

It seems to me those people feel some kind of entitlement to always being able to play the same game without ever having to adapt or learn a bit to new mechanics; they think they are entitled to be lazy. They are like those people who always start complaining when they have to learn something new at their workplace: zero curiosity, zero interest in learning new things, just wanting to be fed 40+ hours of well-known gameplay.

I've always felt that the enjoyment of a new game comes mainly from the learning process you enter to learn the systems of the game, to then adapt to them, that allowing you to beat the game not by pure luck or bruteforce, but because you have acquired a reasonable amount of know-how. In other words, understanding a system is fun, and to do that you have to be ready to learn, and adapt to the system, not complaning at the first sight of an uknown mechanic.

All of the above makes reading the forums kind of a saddening experience for me (I get over it obviously, I'm not literally shedding tears)

So, opinions? Am I right, am I exaggerating? What do you think?

Edited April 8, 2015 by pedroantonio

[Frenzy-kun]

Well. People have different tastes. The problem is people who believes the game should suit them and only them. Just take the game, take what you like from it and if what you can take don't deserve your time, then you have plenty of games out there.

[SlackerBacker]

Too many idiots who won't take the game for what it offers. They expected something else. Preferably "my idea of how this should be which is FAR better than this ****".

Edited April 8, 2015 by LadyCrimson
avoiding language filter

[Molcho]

Does somebody else feel a bit infuriated by the amount of people (specially people with less than 20 posts or so) who makes threads and posts just to complain about their subjective dislike of game systems?

 

 

No and, frankly, it is quite silly. 

 

There is no such thing as "objective dislike". If you like/dislike a certain feature or mechanic, then that's because of your subjective tastes. While your taste might be in line with what the developers intended, other people might see it differently and it's unreasonable to be mad about that. 

 

I also don't see how the postcount is relevant to this matter in any way. If somebody bought this game, he has the same right to provide criticism as anyone else - backer or not. 

It doesn't matter for how long he has been following the development of the game and posting at the forums. 

 

 

The reality of things is that people who are invested in this game because they backed it and waited for a long time to eventually see it finished, feel that they are in a way superior customers whose opinions are more important than that of the guy who picked the game up on Steam two weeks after release. 

 

Everybody should be able to criticize this game, the developers will determine how valid each critique is and draw their conclusions from that. 

 

If that makes you angry, don't visit the forums.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Molcho

[ednanf]

I've pointed this out before.

I agree. I think it's baffling the sense of self entitlement some people are showing here.

Complaining about bugs or serious balancing issues is fine, but most whiners want the game to fit their whims instead of trying to adapt to what is proposed. It's pathetic.

[pedroantonio]

 

 

There is no such thing as "objective dislike".

 

Of course there's not such thing, a dislike will always be subjective, but a critic must be based on objective, proven arguments, not on subjective feelings. For example, I'd never make a thread in the techsupport subforum based on what I subjectively dislike, but only when I observe a dissonance between how a system is intended to work and how's working (aka bugs); and people are making those threads.

 

About the number of posts thing, I agree, it's not a fair measure to determine the amount of time somebody has invested in learning the game systems (I myself only have 50-ish posts but I have dedicated several evenings to read wiki+forums+combat log).

[falchen]

Obsidian said that they set out to make a game like the infinity engine games, expect this means different things to diferent people. As a consequence you have people complaining about great features like aoe loot, just because it didn't work like that in Baldur's Gate, whine whine. In my opinion they suceeded, but for someone who enjoyed a particular feature of those games which got changed might feel dissapointed, because it is not "IE like without feature X".

 

This being a kickstarter funded game also did give people a (false) sense of entitlement, like they figured since they funded it obsidian has to create *their* perfect game. 

[Molcho]

 

 

 

There is no such thing as "objective dislike".

 

Of course there's not such thing, a dislike will always be subjective, but a critic must be based on objective, proven arguments, not on subjective feelings. For example, I'd never make a thread in the techsupport subforum based on what I subjectively dislike, but only when I observe a dissonance between how a system is intended to work and how's working (aka bugs); and people are making those threads.

 

About the number of posts thing, I agree, it's not a fair measure to determine the amount of time somebody has invested in learning the game systems (I myself only have 50-ish posts but I have dedicated several evenings to read wiki+forums+combat log).

 

 

I agree to an extent, but not everything can be put into objective arguments. A good example would be the discussion about Voice Overs. Some people want more of it, others want to get rid of it completely. How do you find objective arguments for either side? It's just a matter of preference.

 

Same goes for other things like combat. Obsidian went and created a new combat mechanic with the engagement system which, again, some people like and others don't. It's very hard, however, to break a complex thing like combat down and figure out exactly what causes one's dislike with it, let alone making an objective statement about it.

 

As a consequence, there will be people screaming "COMBAT SUXX PLZ FIX OR REFUND" and others will try and explain why the combat is flawed. Both are allowed to post their concerns, but only one of them will be taken seriously in the end.

[Rosveen]

Does somebody else feel a bit infuriated by the amount of people (specially people with less than 20 posts or so) who makes threads and posts just to complain about their subjective dislike of game systems?

This is hilarious coming from someone with 50 posts, but still... I wasn't aware that only lifelong Obsidian fans were allowed to voice their opinions. Gee, I even thought Obsidian wanted to attract new players.

 

It's a video game, gameplay is hugely important. Pointing out its flaws will help make the expansion and/or the sequel better, isn't it desirable for all of us? Sure, sometimes people overreact or expect this game to be something it was never meant to be, but often their complaints are valid and useful, it all depends on how it's presented. Looking at your examples, "the game's too hard" doesn't say much, but if you describe specific encounters you have problems with, other people can help you learn new tactics to overcome it or maybe agree this part wasn't very well-designed.

 

 

 

 

There is no such thing as "objective dislike".

 

Of course there's not such thing, a dislike will always be subjective, but a critic must be based on objective, proven arguments, not on subjective feelings. For example, I'd never make a thread in the techsupport subforum based on what I subjectively dislike, but only when I observe a dissonance between how a system is intended to work and how's working (aka bugs); and people are making those threads.

What do you do when you dislike the way the system was intended to work? What if the intended system is inherently flawed? Do you ignore it, shelve the game and go play something else - or do you talk about it on the forum, figuring out how it could be improved and made more fun? Speaking of fun, isn't it the goal of most video games, but also something deeply subjective? Look at the stronghold: it works pretty much exactly how it was designed, but it's terribly boring. We need to talk about such things.

[Stun]

Does somebody else feel a bit infuriated by the amount of people (specially people with less than 20 posts or so) who makes threads and posts just to complain about their subjective dislike of game systems?

No.

 

Edit: Nope. lol

 

Edit2: Echo-chamber forum ideals aside, if no one voices their complaints about this game's craptastic stealth, or its banal, tactics killing engagement mechanic, or its lazy encounter design, or its insultingly slapped together stronghold, or its totally mis-paced XP distribution system, the devs will think they did everything right (90 Metacritic score; we finally cracked the code, yo!), and we will end up getting a Sequel that doesn't fix any of those things, because there was no need to, because no one complained.

 

I don't want that. Do you?

Edited April 8, 2015 by Stun

[Rapscallion]

I find your post quite infuriating OP, to be perfectly frank with you.

 

This is a completely new RPG franchise and nobody expected Obsidian to get it perfect right out of the gate. The gameplay mechanics are mostly excellent but you're delusional if you think it cannot use some adjustment. The players are providing feedback to the developers - not all of it is constructive, or accurate, but I feel like you do the developers a major disservice by assuming they cannot tell the difference between good and bad feedback.

 

No player wants to play a game they dislike, therefore you should stop assuming that feedback, discussion and, yes, criticism of gameplay mechanics is a negative thing. The comments of the playerbase will average out to provide a strong base for further development of this franchise going forward.

 

/rant

[pedroantonio]

 

Does somebody else feel a bit infuriated by the amount of people (specially people with less than 20 posts or so) who makes threads and posts just to complain about their subjective dislike of game systems?

This is hilarious coming from someone with 50 posts, but still... I wasn't aware that only lifelong Obsidian fans were allowed to voice their opinions. Gee, I even thought Obsidian wanted to attract new players.

 

It's a video game, gameplay is hugely important. Pointing out its flaws will help make the expansion and/or the sequel better, isn't it desirable for all of us? Sure, sometimes people overreact or expect this game to be something it was never meant to be, but often their complaints are valid and useful, it all depends on how it's presented. Looking at your examples, "the game's too hard" doesn't say much, but if you describe specific encounters you have problems with, other people can help you learn new tactics to overcome it or maybe agree this part wasn't very well-designed.

 

 

 

 

There is no such thing as "objective dislike".

 

Of course there's not such thing, a dislike will always be subjective, but a critic must be based on objective, proven arguments, not on subjective feelings. For example, I'd never make a thread in the techsupport subforum based on what I subjectively dislike, but only when I observe a dissonance between how a system is intended to work and how's working (aka bugs); and people are making those threads.

What do you do when you dislike the way the system was intended to work? What if the intended system is inherently flawed? Do you ignore it, shelve the game and go play something else - or do you talk about it on the forum, figuring out how it could be improved and made more fun? Speaking of fun, isn't it the goal of most video games, but also something deeply subjective? Look at the stronghold: it works pretty much exactly how it was designed, but it's terribly boring. We need to talk about such things.

 

Yeah, the "number of comments thing" was unfortunate, I apologize for that.

 

You say: "what if the intended system is inherently flawed?". To demonstrate that a system is inherently flawed, you should demonstrate that it doesn't fulfill the tasks it was designed to fulfill, so one should have to:

 

• Determine the planned/stated function and requirements of the system
• Examine the system's behaviour to see if it satisfies its function
• If it doesn't, find why, and what should be changed to fix it
• Post everything in the forums

So, being objective about wether a system is inherently flawed or not requires a certain amount of work, and also knowing the stated intentions of the developers when they designed the system. However, most people don't do that work, and simply point their subjective dislikes (and the hurdles that force them to learn) as flaws.

[pedroantonio]

The comments of the playerbase will average out to provide a strong base for further development of this franchise going forward.

 

/rant

Let's hope you're right in your optimism.

[Jimmious]

Well, games are games and not everyone will like all of them.
I found Oblivion extremely boring while a lot of people loved it. What can we do?

[pedroantonio]

Well, games are games and not everyone will like all of them.

I found Oblivion extremely boring while a lot of people loved it. What can we do?

I also found Oblivion very boring but I never went to the Bethesda forums to make a thread saying:

 

"The game is soooo booooring? Will that be fixed in the next patch?"

 

That behaviour in people is what I find too entitled.

 

 

Edited April 8, 2015 by pedroantonio

[Ink Blot]

I don't mind as long as people back up their complaints with more than a "I don't like it, this sucks". If they go into some detail about what they find wrong/annoying and possibly how they think it could be fixed, I'm fine with that - even if I may not agree with it.

[Varana]

Stating what people don't like is fine. Discussion about what's good and what not, is the entire point of having a forum.

 

Although the drama often gets cranked up to 11 - "this game is unplayable because I don't like X!", "this game is the worst thing evaaAAA!", "the devs suck, complete morons!!!"

Jeez, get a perspective.

 

So just subtract several levels of outrage, and you'll be fine.

"These are great days for exaggeration. In fact, these are the greatest days for exaggeration!"

[Xharlie]

 

"The game is soooo booooring? Will that be fixed in the next patch?"

 

That behaviour in people is what I find too entitled.

 

 

Anybody who finds the game to be boring has every right to raise their issues. They paid for the fun that was promised and they're not getting it.

 

Let me put it another way: this is a ROLE PLAYING game so, naturally, you start off by rolling up a character that you want to play. Since it's relevant, let's say that's a mage... or Wizard in PoE speak. Turns out, Mages are pretty useless so you're finding the endless stream of junk-spiders very tedious. The tedium is further enhanced by the fact that, every half-dozen encounters, you have to run back to town to buy more camping supplies. For you, the game is boring.

 

You also can see easy ways to fix it: make mages more powerful so they're a viable option - they're a fair choice for a fantasy role-playing setting, whatever the lead developer might think; give players to option to remove the camping supply limit if they so choose; don't design dungeons full of cut-and-paste junk-mobs.

 

At least two of those can easily be implemented in a patch.

 

The forum, however, responds by saying "get gud" and "don't play a mage" - two very unhelpful suggestions.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Xharlie

[pedroantonio]

Anybody who finds the game to be boring has every right to raise their issues. They paid for the fun that was promised and they're not getting it.

 

So, if you buy a book and don't like how the plot develops or how it is narrated to you, do you feel justified to go to the publisher or author website and make comments like "I didn't like this and that, will you change that in the second edition to satisfy my tastes"?

 

Obviously not. Obviously if the book is missing ten pages in the middle, you complain rightfully, since that's something not working as intended, a bug.

 

Fun is not measurable, not a feature. People don't pay to have fun, they pay to have access to a product that maybe will give them fun, maybe not, and that's how they should think about it.

[Rosveen]

 

Well, games are games and not everyone will like all of them.

I found Oblivion extremely boring while a lot of people loved it. What can we do?

I also found Oblivion very boring but I never went to the Bethesda forums to make a thread saying:

 

"The game is soooo booooring? Will that be fixed in the next patch?"

 

That behaviour in people is what I find too entitled.

 

After reading this, I think I should revise my opinion about this thread. It seems you don't have a problem with subjective criticism in general, but specifically with strong opinions not backed by any explanation whatsoever.

 

As for Oblivion, I wasn't on Bethesda forum back then, but I sure am glad somebody complained about it because if I had to suffer through that ****ed up level scaling in Skyrim too, I'd start flipping tables.

[Ink Blot]

 

Anybody who finds the game to be boring has every right to raise their issues. They paid for the fun that was promised and they're not getting it.

 

Let me put it another way: this is a ROLE PLAYING game so, naturally, you start off by rolling up a character that you want to play. Since it's relevant, let's say that's a mage... or Wizard in PoE speak. Turns out, Mages are pretty useless so you're finding the endless stream of junk-spiders very tedious. The tedium is further enhanced by the fact that, every half-dozen encounters, you have to run back to town to buy more camping supplies. For you, the game is boring.

 

You also can see easy ways to fix it: make mages more powerful so they're a viable option - they're a fair choice for a fantasy role-playing setting, whatever the lead developer might think; give players to option to remove the camping supply limit if they so choose; don't design dungeons full of cut-and-paste junk-mobs.

 

At least two of those can easily be implemented in a patch.

 

The forum, however, responds by saying "get gud" and "don't play a mage" - two very unhelpful suggestions.

This sounds more like a failure of expectations than an objective game issue. In this game, Wizards just aren't as powerful and god-like as they were in the old D&D based games. They're still a viable class to play, but you need to adjust your thinking about how they play. I realize this sounds somewhat like a 'get gud' statement, but it's not meant to be.

[Xharlie]

 

Anybody who finds the game to be boring has every right to raise their issues. They paid for the fun that was promised and they're not getting it.

 

 

So, if you buy a book and don't like how the plot develops or how it is narrated to you, do you feel justified to go to the publisher or author website and make comments like "I didn't like this and that, will you change that in the second edition to satisfy my tastes"?

 

...

 

Fun is not measurable, not a feature. People don't pay to have fun, they pay to have access to a product that maybe will give them fun, maybe not, and that's how they should think about it.

 

Books are not an interactive medium. Games are and "fun" is supposed to be their primary feature. Before all else, they must be fun to play.

[pedroantonio]

 

Books are not an interactive medium. Games are and "fun" is supposed to be their primary feature. Before all else, they must be fun to play.

 

I'm sorry but that's nonsense.

 

Books (and movies) are not mechanically interactive as a videogame (in the sense that you don't use them by manipulating peripherals, although we could discuse if the physical volume is in itself a peripheral and the book is just the message contained inside it, and in that regard the way the physical volume is made could be important), but they are, let's say, "cognitively interactive". Meaning that your mind interacts with the things you're perceiving, emotionally and intellectualy; and one of the things that interaction can trigger in your mind is fun; because I think we all will agree that fun is something that's in your mind.

 

So based on that, the process of fun being triggered in the consumer's mind obviously depends on an interaction between the product and the mind, and that's valid for games, books and movies. And again, you only can hope fun to be triggered in your brain, but your money only gives you access to the potentially triggering product, not assures the triggering itself.

Edited April 8, 2015 by pedroantonio

[Spivo]

To much complaining?
I think so yes.

Is complaining bad?
I don't think so. I think the right amount of complaining can be very helpful to developers.

But I understand that what bothers me, might not bother others, and what bothers them might seem trivial to me.

Problem is that there are maybe a handfull really important issues, that at the very least warrants closer analysis, but it is drowned in a sea of (in my view) very trivial issues that (in my view) mods should fix.


Examples...
Game fixes (things that should be something developers do, because it often requires deep knowledge of the coding):

- "Stand your ground" or "don't be a retard and attack unless I tell you to!"

- Stealth, sneak, secrets, whole group etc...

 

Mod fixes (things that require changing single game values):

- Less xp, higher xp req to lvl

- Upgrade/downgrade spells/abilities/weapons

- Bandits steal less

 

 

I think a lot of this could be done in one swift move by making a "mod" forum, where people could post about mods etc...

[Xharlie]

Personally, I didn't even try playing a Wizard but I raised it as a common criticism because I have seen it in these forums many times. My point was that someone who isn't having fun is quite entitled to say so and they ARE entitled to ask for a fix in a patch.

 

This doesn't mean that the developers have to implement their every whim but this thread started with the premise that they were not allowed to post their demands - that's just arrogant.

 

Ultimately, making Wizards more useful, adding some party A.I., giving control over the controversial camping limit and fixing balance issues will make the game more fun for a lot of people - myself included.

 

(My now-abandoned character was a monk... a class that is just as useless as the mage.)