Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games?

[GaryChildress]

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]

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

[GaryChildress]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[diablo1]

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]

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]

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]

ORIGINAL: diablo1

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.