I’m surprised they didn’t see this coming. A lot of people had high expectations because of the impact the first game had and if it wasn’t better in every way there was bound to be some negative feedback.
They’re not complaining about negative feedback, are they? They’re complaining about the internet hate machine, which we should be mature enough here to admit is a bunch of juvenile, masturbatory bullshit from people that want to feel good about themselves without doing anything to actually earn that, and so just shit mercilessly in every way on anything they don’t like, because bullying others is a quick and easy way to feel strong for a brief time.
Isn’t that just a more extreme version of negative feedback?
The post the article is talking about does mention toxicity in the community and hints at it being directed at the devs but how much of that is people debating and talking about gripes they have with the game versus crude personal attacks?
All I was saying is this game received a lot of attention and hype so I felt like this was kind of an inevitably. They were never going to please everyone.
No, things becoming more extreme versions of themselves frequently alters their overall effects. To exaggerate to make my point clear, isn’t mass murder just an extreme form of target shooting?
Trying to identify something without taking its real effects into account is rather silly.
I get it but I feel like a vast majority of the criticism they are getting doesn’t fall under the extreme category or into bullying.
Some people might be making Gmanlives-style quips in the Steam reviews that might make themselves feel good but I think a majority of it’s just general disappointment and people expressing it.
“[It’s] not only directed towards our devs but also our fellow community members - resulting in people hesitating to engage with the community,” Hallikainen explained.
Yeah I think that goes with people voicing their disappointment. It’s like with Fallout 76 a lot of the community was split on it. Even now defending it can lead to dog piling.
People are debating in the community. It might not make for a super fun place to be that’s kind of just the reality of it for now.
Fallout 76 was also an unbelievable shitshow, and had very, very few honest defenders. Does it have to go full gamergate for you think its a problematic situation or something? Try to remember there’s a distinction between reasoned debate, like what you and I are doing right now, and trolling. Which I’m sure we could both switch to if we felt like it.
Criticism, for it to be useful, does have certain delivery requirements. The critic, in order to not be shit, has a certain responsibility to their criticism.
Now, gamers are a tough bunch. If a community is losing community, I think we can make some inferences about whats going on, and it’s probably not a bunch of well-reasoned and nuanced debate.
Try to remember there’s a distinction between reasoned debate, like what you and I are doing right now, and trolling. Which I’m sure we could both switch to if we felt like it.
Criticism, for it to be useful, does have certain delivery requirements. The critic, in order to not be shit, has a certain responsibility to their criticism.
I don’t think the bar is that high or that a majority of the negative discussion falls under bullying. It’s a lot of people disappointed in a game and voicing their frustration.
Saying a game sucks and has no redeeming qualities and encouraging them to get a refund when they ask for any kind of tech support for it on Reddit is kind of unoriginal and lazy but I don’t think that classifies as bullying.
For example this is from Reddit about someone liking the game. You get good responses like this
Subjectively or objectively?
Objectively it’s far from what they’ve promised, full of bugs and hardly optimized.
It’s also a promising platform that could evolve into an objectively amazing game somewhere down the road.
If you — subjectively — enjoy it in its current state that’s great!
But you do get some less constructive comments like
I bought CS2 and it’s utter shit.
But now I feel like a sucker to open CS1 again.
End result: I gave up on Cities Skyline completely. May fall out of habit of playing it at all.
CS2 could, but not certainly, be the death of the franchise if more people act like me
And
I could name a hundred things off the top of my head that could be better in this game. I still have a hundred hours though
Even sorting by controversial on Reddit it’s really not that bad. It sounds like there are some posts being removed but a majority of it is people voicing their frustration with modding support taking so long to implement and the game feeling like it’s lacking in some department.
Does it have to go full gamergate for you think its a problematic situation or something?
I feel like were going in circles here. I already acknowledged that there are going to be people that take it to the extreme and that’s wrong but it’s a very percentage of people.
Now, gamers are a tough bunch. If a community is losing community, I think we can make some inferences about whats going on, and it’s probably not a bunch of well-reasoned and nuanced debate.
I disagree. You see communities around games slow down all the time when new games, updates, and DLC steal the spotlight. A lot of the time you just need to wait for things to shift in a different direction. In the meantime people are going to sporadically talk about how they feel about the game and debate updates that come out.
Ah, I didn’t realize you were mainly going off the subreddit, that makes more sense now. Reddit in general tends to have a milder tone compared to most internet spaces, in my experience. I imagine they’re talking about the Paradox Interactive official forums, which can have a more hardcore tone overall, pretty often I’d say. I actually tend to avoid them for that reason, despite being a pdx fan in general.
Even then can you think of some examples from their forum? Going to it myself is feeding my error messages likely due to my VPN or browser configuration
I’d really rather not dig through looking for the trolling to copy/paste. I’m not a cities skylines 2 player, so I don’t really have a horse in this race, except hating toxic internet bullshit in general.
Yeah I think expectations are too high, where people expected a perfect game like cities skylines forgetting that when it launched it was also a very rocky start.
Gamers in general are just very entitled, and very unforgiving
Nah man, that’s just entitlement. Wanting your $50 game to work well when you buy it is peak entitlement, you should be happy your game is running at 10fps with your 4080 RTX.
It wasn’t polished yes, graphics were not great and people were justified being disappointed and returning it if they felt like it was game breaking
But the vitriol is what I mean, the pure hate, the threats to developers, the anger thrown at them. That is what I’m referring to. If some graphical issues make you so mad that you need to literally threaten people then I think you shouldn’t game anymore. That’s where I say entitled and anger issues.
There’s always going to be a small group of people who take things too far once a game gets popular enough. I don’t think it’s right but I’d say it’s to be expected
I think people expected a CS2 with at least some of the cS1 dlc as standard (at least parks) instead we got a base game and then told there wouldn’t be a mod loader and we couldn’t use the steam library. That’s effectively nuked the ability for the community to “fix” the game.
The difference is that nobody was paying attention to CS1 until after a couple patches were released and the game picked up momentum as it was improved and more fleshed out.
Not all that surprising honestly. Starfield is going to be Bethesda's focus and main talking point for a few years at least. And who knows how many games are scheduled between it and ES6, whenever it comes out. Given that Bethesda generally likes a short window between reveal and release I'm wondering just how much they regret teasing a game that might not release for another three or four years.
I’m not “impatient”. I just think it’s dumb to have announced it so early. No one needs to know about development of such a far off project. It’s pointless.
Tell me more about what you disliked about D:OS. I’m playing through in co-op (in the endgame right now) and want to commiserate.
For me it was the bugs and some weird choices where things that should work to progress don’t, and some progress is so convoluted that we had to look it up and we were like ugh wth.
Looking up stuff is annoying when something you’re sure should work logically doesn’t.
It was just very combat-heavy and very challenging, and not in a very fun way. Also I remember going through a period of finding combat just to get XP to be able to get gear to upgrade to or something like that, which prolonged the dragging. Overall it was a slog, which I carried through to see if I got some payoff. Looking back the payoff for me was "Avoid Larian games".
Fair. I was playing a warrior so combat wasn’t as much an issue for me. Tbh when we were starting, someone told us to play DOS 2 instead of 1 since it’s a better gameplay experience and I wonder if all these rough edges have been fixed.
I am a big Dragon Age fan, and I don’t know how far into development DA4 is, but if they are following DAI route (an almost 10 years old game), they’re so screwed. DAI, while better than 2, didn’t leave the best taste in my mouth.
What’s got me worried is how they’re basically trying to copy God of War for the combat. That kind of hack and slash gameplay is not what I want from a Dragon Age game. They’re chasing trends and that rarely goes well.
Andromeda was a mess, and not for the reasons most folks like to ding it for. It was both trying too hard (all those references to other games, like Conrad Verner’s sister and Zaaed’s son) and not trying hard enough (all the copy and paste rule of 3 quests to find three MacGuffins then SAM will figure out how to find a location for another fight).
Andromeda was frustrating because they had a lot of potential - I almost wish had had just truly been bad instead of mediocre. Mediocre is more of a letdown.
I forced myself to finish it. It’s just mass effect 1 but awful. That said, if they just wanted to restart Andromeda and pretend the first one never existed, I’d give it a shot. There’s so much potential in the idea but it was squandered in every possible way
(all the copy and paste rule of 3 quests to find three MacGuffins then SAM will figure out how to find a location for another fight).
This has been my biggest complaint as I’ve been going through ME:A for the first time. I have limited time/energy to play so jumping into ME:A for 2ish hours and basically accomplish nothing really hurts my motivation for the next play session.
When I first started playing it, I was really enjoying the game. It was about the 3rd planet where I had to go to 3 places to unlock a vault to do a thing that the progression loop really started to weigh me down.
The original trilogy was brilliant for me. Get in, do a couple of missions (each one progressing the story a little more) maybe get sucked into a couple more missions and go to bed excited for the next session. But ME:A is just a slog. I’m doing various loyalty missions which is a little better, but still seems to require a lot of go here, here, and here and shoot some guys and then go into here to finish up.
I remember before it came out, when they boasted that each world would be bigger than all the areas in Inquisition, and I had a sinking feeling, because Inquisition had so much bloat. Andromeda was just more for the sake of more, instead of the side missions being tight missions that gave you extra information about the lore or the world.
It reached a point where whenever I found one of these random rule of three quests in the open world where you kill random whatever enemies and SAM says you need to find more data, I would laugh and say, “welp, that’s a quest I’m never finishing!” and ignore it. I had so much better things to do with my time than drive around the world and hope to come across the next two clues that would pop up in randomly chosen spots. It was a time-waster, and Mass Effect had never had those before. So much of the game feels like it’s designed to take up time to increase play time numbers.
Why is everyone acting like Dragon Age: Origins is the only fantasy RPG that ever existed? Baldur’s Gate 3 is the next step in a long legacy of genre defining games.
I feel like JRPGs completely changed what an RPG video game is. They are watered down compared to the original cRPGs from the 80s and 90s. Then the "westernized" version of JRPGs watered it down even more. The old cRPGs were so big and so complex. OG Baldur's Gate, yes, but also Wizardry and Ultima too. I enjoyed Dragon Age because I liked the story, but I'd say Divinity: Original Sin 1 & 2 are more direct descendants of the old cRPG days (DA 2 & 3 bear no resemblance to cRPGs at all). I think Dragon Age games are good modern RPGs everyone should play but Baldur's Gate 3, imo, is a proper cRPG straight out of the 80s with 2023 graphics.
I'm so thankful this game is proving to be so popular. Maybe people are discovering (re-discovering) what RPGs used to be, and what makes them so great.
I’ve been loving this game. The spells are so cool sounding and looking. The characters all look amazing. When comparing it to DOS 2 I’d say that it’s really made the roleplaying aspects shine. Divinity feels like the combat plus the puzzles start to overload everything into the second act.
Bg3 gets stronger in its second act in a lot of ways. Partially because your power levels scale up in satisfying ways and partially because the stakes get higher and the world more dangerous and bleak.
Many characters that appeared earlier really shine in the second act too.
techradar.com
Najnowsze