Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 |
When someone thinks of a gamer a wide variety of adjectives might come to mind. Gamers are usually stereotyped as being ungroomed, antisocial, and lazy. While these previous stereotypes may not hold up one that unfortunately does most of the time is negativity. Gamers are extremely negative! All this negativity would be fine if it was not hurting the industry gamers supposedly love so much.
There is one important and main reason that negativity from gamers is much more detrimental to the gaming industry than nearly any other industry. Unlike most other industries like the film industry, or technology industries, the game industry has a more intimate relationship with its customers. Therefore game developers talk to gamers and change their games based on what gamers are saying. This kind of communication is prevalent through online forums and developer conferences.
So what’s the problem? Getting constructive criticism directly from consumers is always a good thing right? This would be the case if the feedback received from gamers was constructive and not misleading. The proportion of gamers who are overly vocal about criticizing games have a tendency not to see the bigger picture with how a game is developed. They usually nitpick small details which can have a dramatic impact in terms of how the game is played instead of being content with the overall game, and living with the minor flaws.
Therefore developers make changes to their games to address criticism usually resulting in an inferior game. This can be seen across the gaming industry, but is especially evident with the Call of Duty franchise. In 2011 Call of Duty: Black Ops was released which included many new innovative features to how the game was played. These features were intensely criticized by gamers and when Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 was released the following year most of these new features were cut out.
Although Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 was still a great game it could have been much better if many of the features had been left in. Ironically many of the same gamers which criticized Black Ops new features had also been criticizing the Call of Duty franchise for not being innovative enough, which has prompted developers to completely revamp the Call of Duty franchise with Call of Duty: Black Ops II.
Negative gamers have put developers in an impossible situation where they can’t please all gamers and have to degrade their games to address critics, which will then criticize their games for decreasing in quality. Interestingly you would think that I was referring to all gamers, but these vocal negative gamers are actually the minority.
The reason they seem like the majority is that they are much more vocal than the gamers who are content with the games they play. Does this mean that I don’t want gamers to criticize any game that they play? No, I just want the gamers who enjoy the games that they play to become more vocal in their support of these games, and to constructively criticize games they feel could be improved.
-Dylan Bertram
By far my favorite blog I've read. I completely agree with you opinions on negativity in the industry and agree that small things don't need to be tweeked at the expense of the overall game. Recently, Resident Evil 6 has been getting a lot of flak because gamers have felt that, in Chris' campaign especially, a zombie horror game had turned into a third person shooter. Interestingly enough, at a conference a concerned resident evil fan asked developers if there would be "real zombies" incorporated into the new game. The developers reply was "even better", saying the game would have "Zombies with guns". THis has been a major concern in my opinion as well. Great blog Dylan.
ReplyDeleteCorey Morabito
Although it is true that many gamers are very nitpicky about their games, now, it bothers me more when a gaming magazine, such as Game Informer, bashes a game I thought was great. Take the 2010 version of Medal of Honor, for example. I thought that that game was fun, with an okay storyline and gameplay that was fast paced, but not dizzying like the Call of Duty campaigns. (Sorry, but I'm not a fan of CoD. Too hectic and frenzied for me.) True, it wasn't the best game for this generation of consoles (*cough cough* Skyrim *cough cough*), but it was fun. Game Informer didn't think so, though, and they bashed the game, and in my opinion, comparing it too much to CoD. Does it get under your skin when magazines do stuff like this?
ReplyDelete-Megan Commings
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI totally get what you mean when games you like get a bad rep. That's why I go to multiple sources before judging a game. Some magazines/ reviewers are just bias, so it's important to find one that fits your taste in games. For example, Zeitgeist Reviews on YouTube has a fondness for RPGs and he said that the Final Fantasy 13 series and White Knight Chronicles series were really good, but I thought the opposite for both. Angry Joe, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have any biases, so I trust his judgement much more. You gotta find your perfect flavor of reviewer and roll with it.
ReplyDelete-Chris Oxley