5 ms·

The awful comments and attitude that fans of games leave also seems to correlate with the type of game. Violent, competitive games will have fans with a similar

• maceurt 8y ago
  Or major the violent/ competitive games just entice more hardcore gamers who care more about the games they play.
  • hopler 8y ago
    If they care so much, why do they play games they hate made by companies they hate? Why equate hardcore with caring? Do hardcore heroin users care the most about their dope and dealers?
    • loa-in-backup 8y ago
      Your comment seems almost tautological, especially the last part.
    • ed312 8y ago
      Hate is probably not the right word - someone (entirely out of your control) is tinkering with your favorite hobby in ways that you feel are bad. The strong reaction probably speaks more to the fan's deep connection vs actual hatred. I imagine if that same fan was taken on a trip to visit the devs/studio, their attitude would be very different.
    • random_kris 8y ago
      well because they don't actually hate those games / companies and are just showing their frustration with stuff. I remember when fortnite was released and updates every week and their pro community stance. everyone was happy on them, now you go to their discord and is mostly negative
  • Sharlin 8y ago
    ”Caring more” or not, antisocial behavior is antisocial behavior.
  • coldtea 8y ago
    Violent games attracting more violent types is an easy deduction to make. So the grandparent's comment makes sense. But why, as you imply, more violent games would attract people "who care more about the games they play" (over other types of games)? Don't e.g. chess players care as much "about the games the play", perhaps more so than some violent FPS player in times spent? Or RPG players?
    • dx87 8y ago
      They said "violent/competitive", not just violent.
      • coldtea 8y ago
        Which doesn't add much to the argument. Would non-violent/competitive games also attract users more passionate for their games too? In that case competitive becomes synonymous with "games that attract passionate users", and the violent vs non-violent distinction is moot. Else, "competitive" is irrelevant, and it's the "violent" part that matters. In which case, my argument holds: I don't see any reason to believe users of non-violent games are less passionate about their games. And why would violent games be any more competitive than e.g. Chess, or Poker games, or some multiuser strategy game?
    • Zutano 8y ago
      Chess could definitely use some more content to keep players interested, maybe some new characters or a better story-line. And I'd kill for a graphical update, the game looks like it was made a thousand years ago! Unfortunately I think the devs have abandoned the project.
  • cleansy 8y ago
    I wouldn't say that somebody who plays a violent/competitive game is more of a "hardcore" gamer than others. If you look at the hours played per user grand strategy games and simulations seem to be on the front row. And grand strategy gamers are probably one of the most balanced individuals I've met. The only definition that I could come up for in the few minutes I spent thinking about it is that the "usual" flaming, hating and insulting gamers just seem to have an unhealthy emotional balance. Some of these I know in "real life" seem to be very disconnected from emotions "offline". But as soon as they turn on the computer, they release all of these stored emotions.
    • maceurt 8y ago
      Just based on averages the games with the highest average playtime per player are usually strategy games, I would agree, but if you look at super hardcore player like the ones who devote more than 1000 hours to a specific game, the vast majority of them from my experience play games that are super violent or competitive like csgo, lol, dota, fortnite, etc.
  • SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
    I'm not one to define what makes a gamer "hardcore" (much as I despise the term), but surely someone who follows the industry and takes risks on unknown indies and genres is more "hardcore" than someone who will blindly buy the new AAA shooter-of-the-moment every year?
  • matt_s 8y ago
    The competitive gamers that play PvP have a lot of feedback for game developers since bugs, design flaws, etc. can impact their gameplay and chance of winning. At least from the perspective of a gamer that is. For example they play a battle royale genre game and 20-30 minutes into a match they are one of two teams left and then die blaming some perceived thing that happened like game physics getting in the way, it appears they were shot through a wall, etc. The immature gamer (aka 10-20 years old and maybe beyond) may believe their talents are greater than reality.
    • thecatspaw 8y ago
      It is very frustrating however to loose an advantage because the game is buggy
      • matt_s 8y ago
        Yes and what I was alluding to is how do you know if it was buggy or you were just outmatched? If what you perceive happening leaves you thinking a bug caused your demise and not poor strategy, crappy gear, etc. then you will accumulate anger and resentment towards the game developer even if it is unwarranted.
        • thecatspaw 8y ago
          Some bugs are just obvious. Rubber banding, walking and loosing health due to collision (or missing indicator that you got hit by an enemy)
    • cloverich 8y ago
      > aka 10-20 years old and maybe beyond may believe their talents are greater than reality. This goes beyond age and is common outside of just competitive gaming. In the work place you see plenty of people who think e.g. manager's or other departments don't do anything, that they could run the company better, etc etc. On the flipside, I love hearing about people (in e.g. Overwatch) who get stuck at some ranking, hit a breaking point where they stop blaming others and focus on themselves, then slowly start to ascend.
• chapium 8y ago
  I see the poor attitudes more with other types of games. "MOBA" games are only mildly violent but have a terrible reputation. I blame the all or nothing win conditions and that a typical match takes 30-40 minutes. You can easily lose because of one player, which can seem unfair. Whats changed over the years I think, are there are more sore losers. The internet provides enough anonymity that they get away with it. Also, some people are literally addicted to the games, so they are unhappy to be playing and lash out at anyone getting in the way of their fix.
• NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  I call convenient excuse. Only because most games do as little as feasible to get adequate behaviour from the users and fans. In many games it's encouraged, whether overt or implicit matters little, as far as they can get away with. Far too much abusive and offensive behaviour is simply ignored, presumably as it increases overall sales. AAA titles are far more likely to moderate when you become strident and critical or running a bot. Offensive or entitled jerk gets a much easier time - they always get away with it. There is a lot competitive, violent games could do to preserve accountability as the correlation did not used to be there. Design mostly goes the other way in the way PvP, leagues, matchups and competition that tends to temporary, one off, pair ups and teams. It's encouraged. It's one of the main reasons I avoid online titles now. I'm having a much happier time with games that treat online as a secondary or optional component, or entirely solo, and are from Indies.
  • cloverich 8y ago
    I think part of it is, despite being around for a long time now, our technical culture hasn't caught up to this fact: If you host an online community, you are responsible for providing and investing in moderation.
    • NeedMoreTea 8y ago
      Couldn't agree more. I find it ruins the fun inhabiting a world of out of control 13 year olds. A parent, referee, or moderator would make all the difference. I think a lot of the early systems accidentally encouraged more friendly ways. When pvp was between and within guilds you played with every game, being an asshole often came with consequences. Or you got famous for being the touchy one who will throw toys etc. As its become ever more individualised, and you don't need to pick an individual server with just a fraction of the total users, those natural checks don't apply.
• duxup 8y ago
  I used to moderate a really busy gaming forum back in the day. The GTA forums were always the worst. The Civilization and other TBS type game forums were spotless as far as behavior goes. One day they made a change on the forum and moderator names looked different from other users (it wasn't intentional but some old formatting that accidentally was leaked out). I was posting like usual on the Civilization forums and they noticed my username looked odd, folks were surprised to hear there even WERE moderators. There simply had been no moderator action on those forums that anyone could remember. The community simply policed itself and users corrected their behavior on their own in a way that could never happen in GTA forums. That was also the place you saw "reasonable" criticism of the game and respect for it from everyone. It wasn't all positive all the time, but it was balanced in terms of understanding the ying and yang of game development decisions.... and an acceptance that maybe as a user they don't know everything.
  • MrMember 8y ago
    Flight simulator forums are also generally pleasant to use.
    • astrodust 8y ago
      Games that lack leaderboards or clear winners are often far more pleasant to use.
    • AWildC182 8y ago
      o_O All the flight sim forums I've ever seen have been filled with angry children. Everyone always fights to see who can be the most pedantic while also bashing the devs for not being perfect in every way. That's just the average user, don't get me started on the rivet counters...
    • Macha 8y ago
      We certainly don't frequent the same flight sim forums... The users, the devs, it's an entire scene I'd rather keep at arms length. To give an example incident. Last year, a well known developer called Flight Sim Labs included malware in their $140 A320 addon. They stated this was DRM. It's purpose was to send a user's Chrome passwords to the developer if they believed the addon was pirated. It did this by checking the name the addon was registered with. As a community populated by developers, I think people here would recognise this as a bad thing to do. No detection method is perfect, but the specific mode used is particularly crude, and also stealing people's passwords is a no go even if they did pirate your software. There were users spamming forums to both condemn this behaviour, but also users portraying users who decided to no longer support FSLabs or ask for a refund as simply being cheapskates unwilling to support the flight sim scene (developers are few and far between, and in terms of "number/detail of simulated systems", the FSLabs A320 was the best addon to a consumer grade sim for A320. Obviously most users are not equipped to accurately assess the accuracy of the addon, but it was widely believed to be accurate). Or vatsim. Vatsim is an online community for people to simulate pilots with actual ATC. Vatsim itself is meticulously organised with rules of conduct, appionted/elected officials etc. This comes into conflict often with the "It's just a hobby/relaxation" crowd. Also giving people power, even over flying pretend airplanes brings out a certain type of person.
• el_cujo 8y ago
  I think a lot of it has to do with the games being popular rather than violent, though I guess you could say in the current culture of gaming, violent games are more popular. For example, parts of the Pokemon community are extremely vitriolic and relentlessly criticize every new entry in the series. As a fan base gets bigger, its easier for people to dehumanize each other over the internet and thus be meaner to one another, where as smaller fan communities don't have that problem because you see a lot of the same names around and maybe even have an easier time talking to the actual devs. It's less of an anonymous mob, so people are less terrible to each other.
  • mattigames 8y ago
    I'ts both, FPS games trying to look like COD get a lot of flak even at small scale, and the cute stuff like Pokemon gets a lot of flak because the fanbase is in the millions and therefore includes all kinds of people, specially when people with completely opposite opinions but equally passionate about it meet each other ("best pokemon game ever!" then "shut up! its the worst pokemon game ever!")
• AtlasBarfed 8y ago
  When I'm on gawker sites, the sarcasm is pretty high, but it is still jarring when I end up reading a Kotaku story: the distinct air of spoiled entitled teenager runs through their comments and stories in a way the other gawker sites do not, and considering the trashrag nature of most of the gawker stories, that says a lot. But that is the nature of their target demographic. Why can AAA studios drop a repolished doomclone/shooter turd each year and do good sales? Same reason there are always preteen pop groups every couple of years: because there's a new crop of kids each year to sell your crap to. I almost like the fact that these games are now polluted with lootboxes, it just lays bare the contempt the studios have for the players, even if it probably is producing a generation of gambling addicts.
• logfromblammo 8y ago
  There is a personality classification system for gamers based on the four suits of playing cards. Hearts game for the positive social interactions. They like to chat, and give each other "hugglepounces" all the time (whatever those are). They're the ones joining RP guilds, perfecting their avatar appearance, decorating residences, and organizing player-led events for participants from level 1 to level 1023. They actually use the emote gestures. Might cyber with you, if you are nice. If they kill you, it is mainly to watch the victory dance. Diamonds game for the glory. They want to climb to the top of the leaderboards. If the game gives points, they have a lot of them. They lead PvE dungeon raids, and give helpful tips on how to increase your DPS by 0.1% with only a complicated series of keypresses that must be memorized and replicated with perfect timing. They have max-level characters, with all skills unlocked, and several have solo'd the Big Bad Boss designed for group raids. They do speedruns. Clubs live for PvP. They lead AvA raids and guild wars. They feel that AI opponents are no challenge at all, and the only way to truly master the game is by defeating human players of equal or greater skill. All griefers are majority Club. Spades wish to dig up all the secrets. They explore every area, and know where all the easter-eggs are hidden. They have done every quest and read every FAQ, and have likely contributed in some fashion to the wiki. They perform complicated experiments to verify hypotheses regarding formulas and mechanics. They may make obscure references to in-game lore and real-player history and expect you to get them. Any given player can exhibit multiple types. A Diamond-Club likes to hit the top of the PvP leaderboards, specifically. They want to be named Emperor, or Warlord, or Arena Champion, or whatever title is awarded to the best at PvP. A Diamond-Spade has earned all the possible achievements, especially the secret/hidden ones, 100%ing the game. A Diamond-Heart will group with you to help you earn levels, and will gift you with a master-crafted set of equipment. Heart-Spades will organize scavenger hunts and make puzzles with user-created content. Club-Spades obsessively analyze the metagame, and invent weird character builds specifically to defeat the most popular builds. Club-Hearts are rare, and may do things like organize a fight club of RP duelists. In my opinion, it's the Diamonds and the Clubs that tend to ruin a game's fan community, with elitism and anti-cooperation. Too many Hearts can make it a bit saccharine, and too many Spades make it nerdy, but as long as either of those two types dominate, the community remains civil. A non-competitive, casual game, or one that favors strategy over twitch/reflex skills tends to drive off the Diamonds and Clubs. While griefer Clubs can make a game tedious for others, a guild of Diamonds is the worst--they're like the cool kids clique in high school, and you aren't good enough to eat at their table. If a game cannot effectively insulate Heart-ish players from the Diamond-dominant and Club-dominant, they will abandon the game, and the community will grow toxic. If your game does not cater to Hearts, you probably won't want to moderate its message boards.