With gaming, in my opinion, it's a bit different than with cars. Games are purely for entertainment and what entertains one person may or may not entertain another. So the term "fail game" becomes very subjective.
This is pretty much it. The word "fail" gets thrown around far too often to the point where it really has no meaning an more. At this point we have a fairly saturated market, but people's and some developers' expectations are that all games can and should achieve "WoW" like numbers. This is so unrealistic it is mind-numbing how anyone could take that idea seriously.
I doubt they think that "all" games can and should achieve WoW like numbers...just "their" game.
and that isnt unreasonable at all, the general public is fickle and if you hit the right string success will rain over you
what is unreasonable is to expect that half assed, bugged to the core , or very similar but worse overall games, like the ones we keep seeing time after time, will make that.
Then again a niche game, could still be seen as a great game by those who play it. And not every mmo out there needs tens of thousands of players to be enjoyable. So why wouldn't someone who enjoys a game evne though it has a small playerbase defend their game? Such silly and uninformative thing to write imo.
Then again a niche game, could still be seen as a great game by those who play it. And not every mmo out there needs tens of thousands of players to be enjoyable. So why wouldn't someone who enjoys a game evne though it has a small playerbase defend their game? Such silly and uninformative thing to write imo.
But you are assuming that "low playerbase" equates to "fail".
The idea I got from the OP, hes asking why people defends games that are, by most standards and in general consensus, poorly done and plain bad.
low playerbase may be the outcome of the former, but not the event that warrants the game the label of "fail".
With gaming, in my opinion, it's a bit different than with cars. Games are purely for entertainment and what entertains one person may or may not entertain another. So the term "fail game" becomes very subjective.
If a game is still up and making a company enough money that it warrants keeping the game up (meaning it is not costing more to keep the game running than they are bringing in), then it isn't a "fail". To say otherwise only demonstrates that one doesn't know the meaning of the word.
What many people don't realize is that just because they don't personally like something doesn't make it universally "this" or "that".
As far as games, more specifically MMORPGs go, for a title to just go limping along doesn't make it alright. What you have to look at is what the aim was with a certain title, and how much money it looks like was poured into its development and promotion.
Think of AoC, WAR, STO, and SWG for instance.
* AoC had a tremendous ad & promotion campaign, one that I bought hook, line, and sinker. Trailers were exciting. For anyone that was there at Launch Day, it was undeniable that there were lots of players. Funcom went on to proudly proclaim the sales numbers. But given 2-3 months, they were all gone. It got so bad that certain people lost their jobs, including one of the founding members of the company. AoC exists still and has received expansions. But its history proclaims "Failure" all over it.
* WAR? Came out after AoC, was supposed to be a heavy contender. Lots were talking about WAR's release. PvP & RvR, along with the "Warhammer" franchise name was supposed to be the draw. Again, lots of people there at first, but due to a number of reasons, couldn't retain them. Nowadays? WAR only gets brought up in conversations when the subject is a bad, failed game.
* STO & SWG. Both used powerful IP names, Star Trek and Star Wars, respectively. MMORPGs set in any of these fabled IP settings? Instant win, right? I guess they're relying on fans of both IPs to buy just about anything. Both had issues and a bit of a "colorful history" with their customers / fans of the IP name. In the end, they wind up with a fraction of what they should be despite having one of the most powerful IP's on the planet. STO is still there, and SWG lingered on in life support for 6 years, but the plug is about to be pulled on SWG come December '11. Failures both.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
So what people are really doing is defending their choices in life, both of what to like and what they dislike..... (especially since they feel everyone else should agree with their choices)
Hmm, yes, their convictions, the things they're passionate about and believe in, whether that's their enjoyment of a game or their hatred/dislike of a game or trend, and some take it to the point that an 'assault' on their opinion or viewpoint is regarded as an attack on their self.
A middle ground would be where you can be passionate about what you believe in, but are still able to acknowledge that there can be more viewpoints and arguments, not resembling your own taste or opinion, that can have their merits.
Personally I think the problem occurs when one's stance on a product or brand is pushed to a level of zealotry. Meaning, that their view becomes an obsession to the point where they cannot even accept that other people have a differing view as their own. That's truely where the fanboy (and hater) problem exists.
You can be passionate about a game and not be a fanboy, the same as you can passionately dislike a game and not be a hater. It all lies in your reactions to dicussion on the matter. If you like a game and someone presenting a valid criticism against said game causes you to become upset and makes you feel like you need to tell them why they're wrong, then chances are you're a fanboy. Similarly if you hate a game, and people presenting valid praise causes you to become upset and feel the need to tell them why they're wrong, you're probably a hater.
In the end I just shake my head at a lot of it. I really don't get why so many people readily try to attach themselves to a brand or product as a sense of identity. Honestly, it's that kind of blind faith in developers and their products that causes games to fall short of their potential.
Some people might be defending or trolling a game out of personal issues they may have, i think both would somehow be linked to narcissism.
However, with games...well people might enjoy that fail game..and what makes a game a fail game anyway? not reaching an arbitrary subscriber number?
I think a fair amount of these strong opinions form within actualy marketers within the gaming industry. Both for and against a game, one person could do a lot of word of mouth on many forums, and reach a lot of people. I think its why you see some posters act the way they do for as long as they do, its their job.
Everyone plays a game for their own reasons, despite many may share the same reason at its base (good mechanics, good graphics, fun pvp) however there are many people who do quite enjoy that little fail game, and may be willing to defend its honor in the face of what is usually drive by trolling.
Im the kind of person who will pick up a copy and play that hated game just to see, and usually i stay longer than i expect. Some play and like games for what they are, others hate games for what they are not. Its all up to the user to decide what makes a game entertaining for them.
Really though i think for a majority of these troll/fanboi wars that erupt it would probably boil down to narcissim.."if only people could see what i see they would understand why i am right" which is why you get arguments that seem straight out of politics, you know where everyone trys to convice everyone else, but each party in the argument is set in stone what they believe, and in the end everyone leaves just angry and even more solidified int heir origional positions...
Does it become fail when 90% of the population decides that this game doesn't suit their taste, but you still love it?
Does it become fail when you don't like it so no one else can like it ?
Does it become fail because my opinion is the only one that counts?
Does it become fail when the developers stop supporting its own game ?
Does it become fail when the game is losing money ?
In my opinion the game only fails when I stop playing it, but it only fails to me, not to everyone else. I can dislike a game because of a certain aspect of the game, but it does not mean that it fails for everyone because i don't like it. Even if its losing money, it fails for the company, but I can still like it and play it till they shut down the server.
Its personal opinion, same as those that wants to spread the word of doom for all games, its the same for those that want to spread hope to all games. Everyone has different opinions, and thats what improves the world. IF everyone thinks the same, the world would be stagant and boring.
Of course some opinions should be ignored, and some must be ignored but there are also opinions that should be listened to but in the end, the judgement is within yourself.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
With gaming, in my opinion, it's a bit different than with cars. Games are purely for entertainment and what entertains one person may or may not entertain another. So the term "fail game" becomes very subjective.
True. But what's being said here is that the more time you've invested in the product, whether through researching it, using it, etc., the more personally attached to it you are.
What if you spend time researching a bunch of competing products? Does that mean you're attached to all of them?
Originally posted by Normike Originally posted by Benthon
Originally posted by just1opinion
With gaming, in my opinion, it's a bit different than with cars. Games are purely for entertainment and what entertains one person may or may not entertain another. So the term "fail game" becomes very subjective.
True. But what's being said here is that the more time you've invested in the product, whether through researching it, using it, etc., the more personally attached to it you are. What if you spend time researching a bunch of competing products? Does that mean you're attached to all of them?
Technically, what's being said in the article is that the lower your self-esteem is, the more you identify with a product brand (in our case, mmorpg). Your investment in a game just depends on how much you like it and to some degree the game's quality. Your identification with a game is dependent upon your self-esteem, and doesn't really depend on the game's quality.
Identifying with a game is what leads to the angry responses when a game is criticized. This is different from someone who enjoys a game in spite of the game's shortcomings (real or perceived).
The best example I can come up with is Earthrise, because I played it before and after it released. There are people on these forums who will defend the game as 'great', not in spite of the bugs, but saying the bugs don't exist. Other people will say that yes, the bugs exist, but they enjoy it anyway. One response is irrational, and one response isn't.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Prolly cause its like hearing "this garbage may be good enough for the likes of you, but its not good enough for someone like meeeeee" Theres a lot to say about brand wh-res but I'm feeling lazy and its been said before.
So what people are really doing is defending their choices in life, both of what to like and what they dislike..... (especially since they feel everyone else should agree with their choices)
Hmm, yes, their convictions, the things they're passionate about and believe in, whether that's their enjoyment of a game or their hatred/dislike of a game or trend, and some take it to the point that an 'assault' on their opinion or viewpoint is regarded as an attack on their self.
A middle ground would be where you can be passionate about what you believe in, but are still able to acknowledge that there can be more viewpoints and arguments, not resembling your own taste or opinion, that can have their merits.
Personally I think the problem occurs when one's stance on a product or brand is pushed to a level of zealotry. Meaning, that their view becomes an obsession to the point where they cannot even accept that other people have a differing view as their own. That's truely where the fanboy (and hater) problem exists.
You can be passionate about a game and not be a fanboy, the same as you can passionately dislike a game and not be a hater. It all lies in your reactions to dicussion on the matter. If you like a game and someone presenting a valid criticism against said game causes you to become upset and makes you feel like you need to tell them why they're wrong, then chances are you're a fanboy. Similarly if you hate a game, and people presenting valid praise causes you to become upset and feel the need to tell them why they're wrong, you're probably a hater.
In the end I just shake my head at a lot of it. I really don't get why so many people readily try to attach themselves to a brand or product as a sense of identity. Honestly, it's that kind of blind faith in developers and their products that causes games to fall short of their potential.
People engage in this behavior because there are deeper problems within that persons psyche, they have no real control or conciousness of their actions of why they are acting like a hater or fanboy, they see their own behavoir as perfectly rational while others around them see it as rather strange and bizarre. The problem is that if they stop acting this way they might have a real glimpse of that low self esteem and their real unhappiness in life, this in Psychology terms is called "acting out" and is just a mechanism in denial of the real nature of ones reality, so they keep on engaging in this behavior because the alternative is to truly admit there is, as I've said, a deeper problem that needs to be dealt with. In other words they choose the easy way out attaching themslves to something that boosts their self esteem and makes them feel good about themsleves rather than deal with the real underlining painful problem in the first place.
Though saying all that those types of people are rare, most people do have geniune reasons for liking or disliking a game and can rationally explain why they do or do not like something. What we have to understand is that the two things are really the same, so you have people including myself who come to boards like these to discuss these things and you'll find that the vast majority will have their say and move on after they've felt they have said all that is needed to be said. I think many confuse debate with argument, I don't like some games (though they are few in number really) and I will debate why I feel that a certain game is poor but don't get confused with me trying to force my view upon you, even if I strongly word my replies, I'm not, BUT I will try to convince you that I have real soild arguments that are grounded in reality and thats what the vast majuority of people are trying to do, but many cannot handle proper deabte or should that be criticism so they just fall back on lazy retorts and dismiss the opposition as either a hater or fanboy, its easier that way than to just argue the points of the debate.
Also I'm just as much interested in what game developers do wrong as right because only that way can I learn what works and what doesn't within this hobby, I'm just trying to educate myself and as Daffid said in a previous post failure is not just as simple as a game shutting down it has many different connotations, thats what makes the hobby fascinating.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
On the other side, the categorization of games as "fail" is largely subjective. There are people who LOVE Brand-X, and Brand-X is still in business. I doubt they'd consider it "fail".
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
Comments
I doubt they think that "all" games can and should achieve WoW like numbers...just "their" game.
and that isnt unreasonable at all, the general public is fickle and if you hit the right string success will rain over you
what is unreasonable is to expect that half assed, bugged to the core , or very similar but worse overall games, like the ones we keep seeing time after time, will make that.
Then again a niche game, could still be seen as a great game by those who play it. And not every mmo out there needs tens of thousands of players to be enjoyable. So why wouldn't someone who enjoys a game evne though it has a small playerbase defend their game? Such silly and uninformative thing to write imo.
But you are assuming that "low playerbase" equates to "fail".
The idea I got from the OP, hes asking why people defends games that are, by most standards and in general consensus, poorly done and plain bad.
low playerbase may be the outcome of the former, but not the event that warrants the game the label of "fail".
Great contribution, OP. I wish more academic type discussions would take place here. As a side test, maybe they actually do love the game.
interesting thread
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
As far as games, more specifically MMORPGs go, for a title to just go limping along doesn't make it alright. What you have to look at is what the aim was with a certain title, and how much money it looks like was poured into its development and promotion.
Think of AoC, WAR, STO, and SWG for instance.
* AoC had a tremendous ad & promotion campaign, one that I bought hook, line, and sinker. Trailers were exciting. For anyone that was there at Launch Day, it was undeniable that there were lots of players. Funcom went on to proudly proclaim the sales numbers. But given 2-3 months, they were all gone. It got so bad that certain people lost their jobs, including one of the founding members of the company. AoC exists still and has received expansions. But its history proclaims "Failure" all over it.
* WAR? Came out after AoC, was supposed to be a heavy contender. Lots were talking about WAR's release. PvP & RvR, along with the "Warhammer" franchise name was supposed to be the draw. Again, lots of people there at first, but due to a number of reasons, couldn't retain them. Nowadays? WAR only gets brought up in conversations when the subject is a bad, failed game.
* STO & SWG. Both used powerful IP names, Star Trek and Star Wars, respectively. MMORPGs set in any of these fabled IP settings? Instant win, right? I guess they're relying on fans of both IPs to buy just about anything. Both had issues and a bit of a "colorful history" with their customers / fans of the IP name. In the end, they wind up with a fraction of what they should be despite having one of the most powerful IP's on the planet. STO is still there, and SWG lingered on in life support for 6 years, but the plug is about to be pulled on SWG come December '11. Failures both.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
Personally I think the problem occurs when one's stance on a product or brand is pushed to a level of zealotry. Meaning, that their view becomes an obsession to the point where they cannot even accept that other people have a differing view as their own. That's truely where the fanboy (and hater) problem exists.
You can be passionate about a game and not be a fanboy, the same as you can passionately dislike a game and not be a hater. It all lies in your reactions to dicussion on the matter. If you like a game and someone presenting a valid criticism against said game causes you to become upset and makes you feel like you need to tell them why they're wrong, then chances are you're a fanboy. Similarly if you hate a game, and people presenting valid praise causes you to become upset and feel the need to tell them why they're wrong, you're probably a hater.
In the end I just shake my head at a lot of it. I really don't get why so many people readily try to attach themselves to a brand or product as a sense of identity. Honestly, it's that kind of blind faith in developers and their products that causes games to fall short of their potential.
I think its a mix.
Some people might be defending or trolling a game out of personal issues they may have, i think both would somehow be linked to narcissism.
However, with games...well people might enjoy that fail game..and what makes a game a fail game anyway? not reaching an arbitrary subscriber number?
I think a fair amount of these strong opinions form within actualy marketers within the gaming industry. Both for and against a game, one person could do a lot of word of mouth on many forums, and reach a lot of people. I think its why you see some posters act the way they do for as long as they do, its their job.
Everyone plays a game for their own reasons, despite many may share the same reason at its base (good mechanics, good graphics, fun pvp) however there are many people who do quite enjoy that little fail game, and may be willing to defend its honor in the face of what is usually drive by trolling.
Im the kind of person who will pick up a copy and play that hated game just to see, and usually i stay longer than i expect. Some play and like games for what they are, others hate games for what they are not. Its all up to the user to decide what makes a game entertaining for them.
Really though i think for a majority of these troll/fanboi wars that erupt it would probably boil down to narcissim.."if only people could see what i see they would understand why i am right" which is why you get arguments that seem straight out of politics, you know where everyone trys to convice everyone else, but each party in the argument is set in stone what they believe, and in the end everyone leaves just angry and even more solidified int heir origional positions...
What is the definition of Fail ??
Does it become fail when 90% of the population decides that this game doesn't suit their taste, but you still love it?
Does it become fail when you don't like it so no one else can like it ?
Does it become fail because my opinion is the only one that counts?
Does it become fail when the developers stop supporting its own game ?
Does it become fail when the game is losing money ?
In my opinion the game only fails when I stop playing it, but it only fails to me, not to everyone else. I can dislike a game because of a certain aspect of the game, but it does not mean that it fails for everyone because i don't like it. Even if its losing money, it fails for the company, but I can still like it and play it till they shut down the server.
Its personal opinion, same as those that wants to spread the word of doom for all games, its the same for those that want to spread hope to all games. Everyone has different opinions, and thats what improves the world. IF everyone thinks the same, the world would be stagant and boring.
Of course some opinions should be ignored, and some must be ignored but there are also opinions that should be listened to but in the end, the judgement is within yourself.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
What if you spend time researching a bunch of competing products? Does that mean you're attached to all of them?
What if you spend time researching a bunch of competing products? Does that mean you're attached to all of them?
Technically, what's being said in the article is that the lower your self-esteem is, the more you identify with a product brand (in our case, mmorpg). Your investment in a game just depends on how much you like it and to some degree the game's quality. Your identification with a game is dependent upon your self-esteem, and doesn't really depend on the game's quality.
Identifying with a game is what leads to the angry responses when a game is criticized. This is different from someone who enjoys a game in spite of the game's shortcomings (real or perceived).
The best example I can come up with is Earthrise, because I played it before and after it released. There are people on these forums who will defend the game as 'great', not in spite of the bugs, but saying the bugs don't exist. Other people will say that yes, the bugs exist, but they enjoy it anyway. One response is irrational, and one response isn't.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Prolly cause its like hearing "this garbage may be good enough for the likes of you, but its not good enough for someone like meeeeee" Theres a lot to say about brand wh-res but I'm feeling lazy and its been said before.
People engage in this behavior because there are deeper problems within that persons psyche, they have no real control or conciousness of their actions of why they are acting like a hater or fanboy, they see their own behavoir as perfectly rational while others around them see it as rather strange and bizarre. The problem is that if they stop acting this way they might have a real glimpse of that low self esteem and their real unhappiness in life, this in Psychology terms is called "acting out" and is just a mechanism in denial of the real nature of ones reality, so they keep on engaging in this behavior because the alternative is to truly admit there is, as I've said, a deeper problem that needs to be dealt with. In other words they choose the easy way out attaching themslves to something that boosts their self esteem and makes them feel good about themsleves rather than deal with the real underlining painful problem in the first place.
Though saying all that those types of people are rare, most people do have geniune reasons for liking or disliking a game and can rationally explain why they do or do not like something. What we have to understand is that the two things are really the same, so you have people including myself who come to boards like these to discuss these things and you'll find that the vast majority will have their say and move on after they've felt they have said all that is needed to be said. I think many confuse debate with argument, I don't like some games (though they are few in number really) and I will debate why I feel that a certain game is poor but don't get confused with me trying to force my view upon you, even if I strongly word my replies, I'm not, BUT I will try to convince you that I have real soild arguments that are grounded in reality and thats what the vast majuority of people are trying to do, but many cannot handle proper deabte or should that be criticism so they just fall back on lazy retorts and dismiss the opposition as either a hater or fanboy, its easier that way than to just argue the points of the debate.
Also I'm just as much interested in what game developers do wrong as right because only that way can I learn what works and what doesn't within this hobby, I'm just trying to educate myself and as Daffid said in a previous post failure is not just as simple as a game shutting down it has many different connotations, thats what makes the hobby fascinating.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
Familiarity breeds attachment.
On the other side, the categorization of games as "fail" is largely subjective. There are people who LOVE Brand-X, and Brand-X is still in business. I doubt they'd consider it "fail".