Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

GaryChildress -> Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games? (1/18/2011 12:34:22 AM)

What do you think?

I can't tell you how many times I have enjoyed a game and then come to find out from one of the local forum experts on military history and technology that the designers messed up on something. It really takes the fun out of a game once I've been told that it's "defective". Why bother with the game anymore. The beguiling shroud of enchantment has been broken or something.

The trouble is, I'm not a stickler for details. I just play the game and usually enjoy it in my blissful ignorance. I don't first go into the editor and notice that the stats for the Mitsubishi Zero are all screwed up. But once someone points it out to me, then the bubble of blissful ignorance is busted.

Granted, there are usually patches that follow and even remakes that are supposed to be better. But it usually doesn't take long before the critics find something wrong with the patches and remakes.

I really have to wonder...what if there were no Matrix forums? What if Matrix only produced games and then left it up to fans to write confidential e-mails to them or something to complain about the mistakes? I probably wouldn't ever have noticed the botched stats on the Zero and would probably be enjoying games like War in the Pacific to this day.

Just some thoughts about the effects of criticism.



jomni -> RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games? (1/18/2011 12:37:57 AM)

It generally improves a game but I don't bother going into those details.



GaryChildress -> RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games? (1/18/2011 12:43:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni

It generally improves a game but I don't bother going into those details.


But if you never knew the game was broke to begin with and were having fun playing it, then maybe it didn't need "improving."



Alfred -> RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games? (1/18/2011 1:06:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

What do you think?

I can't tell you how many times I have enjoyed a game and then come to find out from one of the local forum experts on military history and technology that the designers messed up on something. It really takes the fun out of a game once I've been told that it's "defective". Why bother with the game anymore. The beguiling shroud of enchantment has been broken or something.

The trouble is, I'm not a stickler for details. I just play the game and usually enjoy it in my blissful ignorance. I don't first go into the editor and notice that the stats for the Mitsubishi Zero are all screwed up. But once someone points it out to me, then the bubble of blissful ignorance is busted.

Granted, there are usually patches that follow and even remakes that are supposed to be better. But it usually doesn't take long before the critics find something wrong with the patches and remakes.

I really have to wonder...what if there were no Matrix forums? What if Matrix only produced games and then left it up to fans to write confidential e-mails to them or something to complain about the mistakes? I probably wouldn't ever have noticed the botched stats on the Zero and would probably be enjoying games like War in the Pacific to this day.

Just some thoughts about the effects of criticism.


You should take the comments from the "local forum experts on military history and technology" with more than a grain of salt for the following reasons.

1. The most dogmatic vociferous critics are usually nit picking because in their eyes it should be a simulation. This is a fundamental misrepresentation of the software. They are commenting on a game designed to run on commercial retail hardware. Unless the software is designed to run on hardware comparable to Supercray, it is impossible to have a simulation. It is like complaing that an ultralight plane will not suffice to take you to the moon.

2. Very few of the dogmatic vociferous critics have any knowledge or experience of the subject matter they profess expertise. Just how many of them have (a) actually flown a Zero at various atmospheric conditions, (b) been at the controls of a Zero whilst under attack from enemy ground/ship/airplane. Instead, at best they are usually reliant upon secondary sources which more often than not repeat earlier mistakes and these critics lack the training/knowledge to test the accuracy of the secondary sources.

3. These dogmatic vociferous critics tend to be very selective. For example, in WITP:AE, the A6M2 Zero is given a maximum speed of 331 mph. Back in the real world, the top speed of any WWII airplane was dependent inter alia on (a) the altitude, (b) the fuel quality, (c) maintenance status, (d) did they see the enemy in time to pull full throtle etc etc. Again because these are games, not military simulations, the data is really only a judgement call intended at best to be representative of the acceptable range.

Don't allow opionnated megaphones ruin your enjoyment of a game. The few real experts on the forums are usually much gentler in putting forward their views and usually acknowledge the judgement calls which have been made.

Alfred




Yogi the Great -> RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games? (1/18/2011 1:08:54 AM)

If I enjoy a game, I really don't care if someone else doesn't like it or complains about it.

On the other hand, I have to admit that if a I see a lot of complaining before I have purchased a game, it very well might influence me not to do so and I could be missing out on a game I would like. So I try to not be influenced by a couple of complaints, if others have good things to say.

Criticism is a double edged sword for sure. But then again without it, we would have less chance of making progress and improvements in gaming. Also the chance of being flooded with bad games and making bad purchases would increase by more then the negative aspects caused by such criticism can cause us.

Then again, what the hell do I know.



jomni -> RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games? (1/18/2011 1:46:54 AM)

I wouldn't call a game "broken" just because of historical inaccuracies.
A broken game in my books is something that crashes all the time.



Greybriar -> RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games? (1/18/2011 1:51:57 AM)

Constructive criticism should be welcomed by everyone--gamer, developer, and publisher. But complaining just to be complaining is negative in a big way. And I've seen people who do it because they don't like a certain PC game company.

On the other extreme are the fan boys. No matter how bad their favorite developer's / publisher's game is, it is perfect in their eyes and anyone who says different is wrong, wrong, WRONG! Depending on who takes them seriously, they can be as much to blame for a bad game as those who constantly complain.

Some of my favorite games got bad reviews, and the reviewers had valid arguments. But I still enjoyed playing them.



Jeffrey H. -> RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games? (1/18/2011 3:02:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

What do you think?

I can't tell you how many times I have enjoyed a game and then come to find out from one of the local forum experts on military history and technology that the designers messed up on something. It really takes the fun out of a game once I've been told that it's "defective". Why bother with the game anymore. The beguiling shroud of enchantment has been broken or something.

The trouble is, I'm not a stickler for details. I just play the game and usually enjoy it in my blissful ignorance. I don't first go into the editor and notice that the stats for the Mitsubishi Zero are all screwed up. But once someone points it out to me, then the bubble of blissful ignorance is busted.

Granted, there are usually patches that follow and even remakes that are supposed to be better. But it usually doesn't take long before the critics find something wrong with the patches and remakes.

I really have to wonder...what if there were no Matrix forums? What if Matrix only produced games and then left it up to fans to write confidential e-mails to them or something to complain about the mistakes? I probably wouldn't ever have noticed the botched stats on the Zero and would probably be enjoying games like War in the Pacific to this day.

Just some thoughts about the effects of criticism.


Well, I don't like personal attacks and rude comments. That can really turn me off a game. Who has the time in their life to be abused over some comment you made about a game ? I don't. Sadly it seems loads of people do and nothing turns me off harder.

Funny thing is, I am not really price sensitive, I would gladly pay more if I could get more. And yet these free forums seem to attract some serious mental cases.

Let me ask you this in return, would you still be a Matrix forum subscriber if posting was allowed only for paid members ? Reading by everyone, posting only by paid members, say $100/yr ?





jomni -> RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games? (1/18/2011 3:04:21 AM)

I would beleve that there are a lot of people who buy the games and not post in the forums at all.
They are busy playing the game.



martok -> RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games? (1/18/2011 7:11:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Greybriar

Constructive criticism should be welcomed by everyone--gamer, developer, and publisher. But complaining just to be complaining is negative in a big way. And I've seen people who do it because they don't like a certain PC game company.

On the other extreme are the fan boys. No matter how bad their favorite developer's / publisher's game is, it is perfect in their eyes and anyone who says different is wrong, wrong, WRONG! Depending on who takes them seriously, they can be as much to blame for a bad game as those who constantly complain.

Some of my favorite games got bad reviews, and the reviewers had valid arguments. But I still enjoyed playing them.

Well said, Greybriar.





ilovestrategy -> RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games? (1/18/2011 7:18:32 AM)

Oh that's like me and Gary Grigsby's World at War. I've said several times over the years I love that game and I'll get at least 2 people saying it sucks and it's for the Axis and Allie's kiddies.

The current game I'm playing is Storm over the Pacific. According to the forums the game is a total wreck.



jomni -> RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games? (1/18/2011 7:42:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

Oh that's like me and Gary Grigsby's World at War. I've said several times over the years I love that game and I'll get at least 2 people saying it sucks and it's for the Axis and Allie's kiddies.

The current game I'm playing is Storm over the Pacific. According to the forums the game is a total wreck.



You have very intresting tastes. :D



diablo1 -> RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games? (1/18/2011 8:33:11 AM)

quote:

And I've seen people who do it because they don't like a certain PC game company.


Really? Whom? Plus how do you know they don't like a certain game company? Perhaps you just read into them this way because you don't like them because they complain or don't like the game company that you do?

I personally think all forums "should" be for "feedback" whether it be good or bad, rave or complaint. Too many forums have their fanboys who try to ruin theads of negative/complaint feedback and antagonize the negative/complaint posters. All feedback should be welcome and anything out of line should be taken up by the forum moderators not the forum members.

Though in fairness to the OP who just can't handle complaints without it ruining his game they should add a checkbox to posts if it is a complaint the member would check the box and then at the top in the subject the OP would see it is a complaint post and then "not read it". Then he would have no excuse to complain about the complainers. [:)]



Obsolete -> RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games? (1/18/2011 12:16:27 PM)

quote:

But if you never knew the game was broke to begin with and were having fun playing it, then maybe it didn't need "improving."


Maybe YOU didn't realize it was broken, but others sure will. If we make the forums PC-Friendly to the point where criticism is not allowed, you risk more and more war-games turning into a PoS like Axis & Allies: IRON SH1TZ was. Throw in some other atrocities like Squad Leader, and the like...





Anthropoid -> RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games? (1/18/2011 12:37:03 PM)

Small technical errors or faulty abstractions that do not disturb the illusion of belief or immersion are one thing. I'd call abstracting the speed of aircraft in a way that someone might quibble over the details that sort of "problem."

Bad UI, boring tedious game dynamics, bugs, CTDs that sort of thing, poor balance, cheesy story elements, egregious gaps in content, game dynamics that the AI simply cannot accomplish much less 'master;' these are all examples of things that warrant criticism, and where constructively expressed criticism may actually promote the game. IMO, nitpicking the details is only really worthwhile to the extent that those details, either singularly or in the aggregate take away from overall game play.



Greybriar -> RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games? (1/18/2011 12:41:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: diablo1

quote:

And I've seen people who do it because they don't like a certain PC game company.


Really? Whom? Plus how do you know they don't like a certain game company? Perhaps you just read into them this way because you don't like them because they complain or don't like the game company that you do?....

First of all, I will not derail this thread by mentioning the name of the company. Erik would not approve of me doing so anyway. It isn't that hard to figure out if you have been playing strategy PC titles for the past couple of years.

As for my reading it into things, not a chance.



Sarge -> RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games? (1/18/2011 1:07:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

What do you think?

I can't tell you how many times I have enjoyed a game and then come to find out from one of the local forum experts on military history and technology that the designers messed up on something. I



What I think is most if not all of these "Experts on military history and technology" surfing war game forums are self appointed .
Truth be told, the hobby has always been plagued with people with to much time on their hands [;)]







Yogi the Great -> RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games? (1/18/2011 1:58:13 PM)

Actual Expert or self Appointed makes little difference to me. If the criticism is about specific details of alledged historical inaccuracies and/or statistics it means very little to me anyway.

Now criticism about if it is a good game experience, crashes, total lack of realism, poor AI etc. I try to pay a bit more attention. Even then you have to weigh it all from a proper perspective. Kind of like discussions on the most boring movie, best soundtrack, best game etc. opinions can vary quite a bit. My favorite games are just that, my favorite games. Picking something based on anothers criticism is at best a fairly debateable practice, unless you have a very good knowledge and understanding of the critics preferences and opinions.



diablo1 -> RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games? (1/18/2011 5:59:04 PM)

quote:

Truth be told, the hobby has always been plagued with people with to much time on their hands


+1 Most truthful statement of all.

One thing that bugs me though (not complaints) is these historical nitemares who come into threads and start talking about books they've read and the blazay crap in them. I could care less what anyone has read. I come to "game" forums to read about "games" not get some flyonthewall history lesson or told what books I should or need to read. But, see we each have our own independent gripes about what's in threads. OP doesn't like complaints I don't mind them, he probably loves books and book readin and I could care less about them. It spoils my immersion of thread readin. [8|]



TonyE -> RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games? (1/18/2011 7:22:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

What do you think?

The trouble is, I'm not a stickler for details. I just play the game and usually enjoy it in my blissful ignorance. I don't first go into the editor and notice that the stats for the Mitsubishi Zero are all screwed up. But once someone points it out to me, then the bubble of blissful ignorance is busted.



As the volunteer developer of Harpoon Classic (HCE/HUCE/a zillion more acronyms here) I can give that perspective. First, don't bother playing Harpoon. It has been around for 20+ years and the criticisms started at least that long ago and rage with fury on occasion.

As a developer I thrive on the feedback provided both positive and negative. If I have a beta tester tinkering with each build as I crank them out, I'll spend a lot more time coding than if I post up a build and hear zero.

As for the regular forum posts for me it really depends upon how the criticism is written. "This game sucks" doesn't do anything positive for me. "Ships in formation don't adjust to new formation zone sizes" gives me something useful that I'm thankful for even if it is a glaring and structural problem. Individual tone matters for me as well. Some players can tell me the sky is falling and I'm happy for the report. Some players have a little different grasp of English and tell me the sky is fine but needs some polishing and I'll be grumpy for days.

Okay, enough rambling. In sum as a programmer of a Matrix published game, feedback is both the most likely thing to keep me programming and the most likely thing to make me walk away permanently.




pmelheck1 -> RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games? (1/18/2011 7:44:41 PM)

I tend to ignore such whining.  Their are those who believe that their beloved favorites are massively under represented.  If the Yamato/Bismarck cant whip the navies of the rest of the world combined than obviously the game is flawed to the point of being unplayable.  Historical performance of a weapon system is ignored because of poor usage of the weapon system real or imagined.  This plane or that plane should rule the skys based on some ones reading of performance data.  What's funny to me is that some weapon systems sound really good on paper but turn out to be absolutely abysmal is use. 



wodin -> RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games? (1/20/2011 2:11:42 AM)

Funny this should be mentioned. I've decided in the future if I really enjoy a game I going to stay away from the said game forum...unless it keeps crashing or has some king of bug...for precisely the reason you stated...



jomni -> RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games? (1/20/2011 2:30:52 AM)

I just thought of somehting...

Most games not based on WWII do not have problems of this magnitude because these conflicts are lesser known or has less documentation, and far fewer "experts". :)



Anthropoid -> RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games? (1/20/2011 3:51:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni

I just thought of somehting...

Most games not based on WWII do not have problems of this magnitude because these conflicts are lesser known or has less documentation, and far fewer "experts". :)


I don't notice these problems in the TES forums _at all_[:D]



KG Erwin -> RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games? (1/20/2011 4:06:09 AM)

Gary, perhaps you are giving too much weight to the self-proclaimed "experts". If you are enjoying the game, and if it seems "real" to YOU, then be happy and simply ignore the criticisms. Forums like this one, as I have found, tend to attract folks of questionable "historical authority". It's difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, and it takes a lot of patience. After being a member here for over 6 years, I can usually tell the difference.



ilovestrategy -> RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games? (1/20/2011 4:41:03 AM)

If you want to enjoy a game stay away from the forums! [:D]



V22 Osprey -> RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games? (1/20/2011 6:32:01 AM)

There seems to be the wrong people reviewing the wrong game. Because of this it can be hard to tell if it's a truly bad or broken game, or if it's just a matter of taste. For example, someone who reviews WitP:AE might HATE micromanagement and think that too much makes for a bad game. Well of course he's going to give it a low score. Big gaming review notorious for this, they may not nock a game for a certain feature but it may be something allot of players would think is the funnest thing in the world. Wargaming sites are better on this, because on most wargaming review sites don't even give a score, they more or less give a 'run-down' of the game and features, bugs, etc and let the player decide.

Criticisms improve games overall, but sites like IGN and Gamespot are really ruining the mainstream market.



warspite1 -> RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games? (1/20/2011 8:05:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni

I just thought of somehting...

Most games not based on WWII do not have problems of this magnitude because these conflicts are lesser known or has less documentation, and far fewer "experts". :)

Warspite1

That's a good point you raise.

1. I am really interested in the Napoleonic era and have read quite a lot about it.
2. I am vaguely interested in Roman times but have not read much and do not really know one emperor from another...

Take the Total War series.

1. I love Rome Total War
2. I like Empire Total War, but there are unrealistic aspects that take the shine off the game.

I guess the point is - Rome Total War could have just as many "faults" as Empire, but because I do not know much about the period, I am not aware of them and am therefore able to simply enjoy the game at face value.

Moral: a little knowledge can seriously damage your gaming experience [;)]





warishere -> RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games? (1/20/2011 8:25:05 AM)

There is no such thing as a "perfect" game. You either enjoy playing it or you don't. Developers can only do so much with a game and sometimes they have to sacrifice historical accuracy for fun gameplay. I mean honestly, would anyone enjoy playing a game based on Operation Desert Storm? I wouldn't because it was a total massacre for one side. So you see, there are times when you have to sacrifice accuracy for the sake of having a playable game.

Recently I've been play a few games one of them being WWII: General Commander which is an RTS game. It plays very solid for an RTS game but I know for a fact that there are some historical inaccuracies in the game. However, the problem is, the game would be way to easy to play as the allies if they made it exactly according to historical truths. So, as a result, they changed it up to make it a more balanced game.



warspite1 -> RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games? (1/20/2011 8:29:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warishere

There is no such thing as a "perfect" game. You either enjoy playing it or you don't. Developers can only do so much with a game and sometimes they have to sacrifice historical accuracy for fun gameplay. I mean honestly, would anyone enjoy playing a game based on Operation Desert Storm? I wouldn't because it was a total massacre for one side. So you see, there are times when you have to sacrifice accuracy for the sake of having a playable game.

Recently I've been play a few games one of them being WWII: General Commander which is an RTS game. It plays very solid for an RTS game but I know for a fact that there are some historical inaccuracies in the game. However, the problem is, the game would be way to easy to play as the allies if they made it exactly according to historical truths. So, as a result, they changed it up to make it a more balanced game.

Warspite1

Doesn't that depend upon the game? I think that most games are designed to be balanced and for each player to have the (same) chance of victory - however I do not think that applies to all games e.g. WITE or WITPAE. Unless I am mistaken, in those latter games, the focus is on historical accuracy and not game balance.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.828125