Let's be Postive about Negativity

[Nissa]

^ Tip: you wouldn't have been accused of nostalgia if you didn't state and compare things from "these days" to "back then". Also, I suspect that even if a popular modern game was considered "good", you'd still rail against it for appealing to/appeasing the masses (the "it's popular, so it sucks" syndrome).

There are plenty of creative games out there. You just have to look and not expect it from the big companies/AAA titles/"popular" games.

As to "good" games existing, that will always depend on one's tastes/preference.

By "back then" I am referring to a specific time period of the 90s, and a little over into the 2000s. That is "back then" and now is "current", no matter what I say. Were games to be more appealing ten years from now, then I would say "back then games used to suck" and "games are currently very good."


Anyway, I didn't really want to get into a long argument about nostalgia. I wanted to talk about people's reactions to negative reviews. Like how people go out of their way to accuse a dissident of needing mental help, or not "getting" it. I read/watch reviews obsessively, and people in comments have the tendency to not accept criticism of anything they like, even if said criticism is just a mild rebuke against a specific aspect of a product that the reviewer enjoys.

I was over at Amazon looking at reviews of Random Access Memories, and Amazon deleted several one and two star reviews of the album. Including mine. The other reviews I noticed it took down were the ones that tended to be the most well-written, leaving behind the ones that were one or two sentences and half incoherent. Fun stuff, reviews are.

[Turalyon]

I wanted to talk about people's reactions to negative reviews.

It's easy to explain. Most people can't or won't appreciate the fine difference between criticism and negativity. Negative reviews are often and mistakenly seen as ad hominem attacks on an audience member. That or it's viewed as an attempt by the writer to sound self-important/superior to that of all other opinions. All this maybe due to how it's written or expressed. A negative review often carries the implication (unintentiional or not...) that anyone who likes the reviewed product is "flawed" or "wrong" in someway as the reviewed product. No-on except a masochist likes such implications, hence the reactionary comments to said reviews.

[Nissa]

It's easy to explain. Most people can't or won't appreciate the fine difference between criticism and negativity. Negative reviews are often and mistakenly seen as ad hominem attacks on an audience member. That or it's viewed as an attempt by the writer to sound self-important/superior to that of all other opinions. All this maybe due to how it's written or expressed. A negative review often carries the implication (unintentiional or not...) that anyone who likes the reviewed product is "flawed" or "wrong" in someway as the reviewed product. No-on except a masochist likes such implications, hence the reactionary comments to said reviews.

Not really, though. That "implication" is really manufactured by the audience, most of the time. You might as well say that all positive reviews automatically imply that anyone who doesn't like it is a fool. Granted, anyone with a strong opinion won't necessarily be able to understand people who feel differently, but that applies to all reviews, including indifferent ones. Quite frankly, when a person goes "I think this particular part of the movie was flawed" and someone else responds "you have a mental disorder if you post negative things about this film," then the only real takeaway is that the latter person is nuts.

But yeah, people are very quick to criticize someone's personality if they don't like what the person is saying. It's sort of like when they can't win with logic, so they go for name-calling. Granted, some of them might have been knee-jerk reacting instead of considering logic.

Quite frankly, I really enjoy negative or semi-negative reviews. Not because they're negative, but because they, rather than positive reviews, tend to talk about a product more in-depth. It's like, people will accept that you like a thing, but if you dislike it, you have to explain in great detail before people can accept your opinion...and then you risk getting labelled as self-important. The only time that this is reversed is when someone's giving a positive review of a generally disliked thing. In other words, I like it when people over-analyze stuff, and I don't think it's an ego thing when they do.

[Turalyon]

That "implication" is really manufactured by the audience, most of the time.

I know. That's why I said "most people can't or won't appreciate the fine difference" and "mistakenly seen".

You might as well say that all positive reviews automatically imply that anyone who doesn't like it is a fool.

Yeah, it kinda goes hand-in-hand with what I said. Those same people who will deride a negative critic will quickly pounce on and use the example of another, more positive critic to feed their confirmation bias.

Quite frankly, I really enjoy negative or semi-negative reviews. Not because they're negative, but because they, rather than positive reviews, tend to talk about a product more in-depth. It's like, people will accept that you like a thing, but if you dislike it, you have to explain in great detail before people can accept your opinion...and then you risk getting labelled as self-important. The only time that this is reversed is when someone's giving a positive review of a generally disliked thing. In other words, I like it when people over-analyze stuff, and I don't think it's an ego thing when they do.

Reviews are just subjective opinion pieces in the end, so it's hard to feel impartial about them when you read them. I would like to think that "good" constructive critiques are neither positive nor negative. Nor should they be about what one likes/dislikes, but more about what/how/why something seemingly works/not work in certain contexts.

[TheEconomist]

We're saying the same things, only I'm saying them badly, apparently.

You are saying games were better back 'n tha day. I'm saying they only seemed better back 'n tha day. Low hanging fruit means it was easier to be innovative back then because nothing had been done before.

And, to be clear, I don't think AAA games today are really any less creative than AAA games used to be. Like I said, everything used to be a platformer, now everything's open world. etc. And you have yet to make an argument with examples and comparisons, only statements of opinion. There's a bigdifference between saying, "Mega Man X was more creative than Uncharted 4 because ...." and just saying "Games today are stooopid!" When you starting giving arguments, our responses will be more than "subjective" statements too.

And, to further demonstrate my point, I just went on a vacation and the only technology I had was my tablet and emulators. So the only games I played were old NES/SNES/Genesis games. There was really nothing great about them (other than nostalgia) compared to modern games platformers. Granted, I was on vacation and had no itention of playing games, but a five minutes before bed was fine, just to prove my own argument to myself further.

And, like Gradius said, I don't feel the need to talk to you about the merits of modern gaming until I can at least verify a game that you have played.

[Nissa]

Well, Econ, I think, to some degree, you're arguing about tastes. I really enjoy many old NES/SNES games. I won't say some of them aren't crap, but honestly, they're really a lot of fun. Trouble is, you're really just saying that you dislike them. That's pretty subjective. Plenty of people still play and enjoy the older games, and you saying you don't like them doesn't really mean much. Granted, you're entirely free to dislike them. You don't have to pretend you do to please anyone.

And as far as back in the day goes, again, that's just as simple way to refer to a point of time in the past, when games were focused more on gameplay and less on melodramatic stories and photorealistic graphics. But whatever. If you're convinced that I'm some nostalgia-blind kid, whatever, I don't really care. All I know is, depressing stories and uncanny valley graphics have no appeal to me. If a modern indie title can provide what I want, then by all means, I'll give them credit. Maybe now that graphics have reached a peak place, where there's no massive graphics jump between consoles, people can focus on using graphics for new things rather than just making "better" ones.

I've actually been playing a lot of games made by the Hamster Republic RPG engine, and they really take me back. They're just random people trying to make things that play well, and it's amazing to see how their creative ideas can make older formulas work. There's one I really like that's a combination of an RPG and space exploration. So much fun.

[TheEconomist]

Trouble is, you're really just saying that you dislike them. That's pretty subjective.

It's like you possess absolutely zero self-awareness.

And I never said I disliked old games. Never. Not even close. I just reject the idea that they were more creative.

Again, still waiting on an argument like I proposed in my previous post. I'm done until then.



As a reminder:

And you have yet to make an argument with examples and comparisons, only statements of opinion. There's a big difference between saying, "Mega Man X was more creative than Uncharted 4 because ...." and just saying "Games today are stooopid!" When you starting giving arguments, our responses will be more than "subjective" statements too.

[Nissa]

You are taking this way too seriously, Econ. Also, not terribly interested in an argument with you, so, I guess I'm done too.

[TheEconomist]

No seriousness, just repetition.