Treyarch to gamers: STFU u h8ers

[UnSub]

Treyarch: It's all the hateful words used by fans that are destroying video game innovation.

Bonus points because it is from Treyarch's community manager. In an interview about DLC to a franchise title.

[Nightblade]

Treyarch: It's all the hateful words used by fans that are destroying video game innovation.

 

[Paelos]

Yep, it's not the POS game, it's those mean customers that just don't get it!

[Mrbloodworth]

Yep, it's not the POS game, it's those mean customers that just don't get it!

I don't think thats what he said.

He has some valid observations, if you don't focus on the title hes associated with. Gamers have become more cynical, and, you could make the best game ever, but some users would be condemning it, because this in a small part, has become the normal mode of conversation. IE: Big giant cynical contrary rants. I have even seen extremely long accusations and tirades as a way to ask questions. Or some of the most insulting, snide cometary and personal attacks as a the normal form of discussion, or info gathering. Its very odd, and its not just in games.

To ask a question or receive help with minor things (such as what button to press) has become an art form in tearing down the game, the people, and the other users in order to get an answer.

IE:

"I can't believe you made this boss so broken, its imposable to kill him, I bet your wife hates you in bed"

"Dude, just shoot him in the head"

"Fuck you apologist, thats to logical to be anything other than a bug and bad design! This game sucks"


I think this does impact choices developers make with changing the norm, if something is outside of a games expected manner, it can ignite even more bad press on top of this new trend of "normal" discussion. We all know it does not matter if something is true, it just maters if its said.


/flame suit

[Paelos]

His observations are not vaild. He's just complaining about the internet being more popular and offering anonymity to a younger audience without the ability to express themselves in a coherent manner. It has nothing to do with games. Media's growing and people complain, so that stunts creative growth? No. What stunts growth is the inability manufacture a product that will sell and get financial backing for it without blowing it in an orgy of stupidity. You know what really stunts creative growth in games?

1 - Financial backers not willing to take chances on something that isn't a proven formula
2 - Developers being so shitty with overhead expenses that investors lose confidence
3 - Derivative shit that's broken at release, driving down sales
4 - The expectations gap between investors, publishers, developers, and customers
5 - Projects that fall into problems because of an unreasonable time table.

None of that has to do with kids getting angry on the internet. It's a convenient scapegoat for the fact that most "creative" minds have absolutely no idea how to run a business.

[Mrbloodworth]

Word of mouth on the internet is powerful. In fact I believe there are some very popular sites dedicated to this very notion positive and negitive.  

No one is saying its the only reason.

[Paelos]

Word of mouth on the internet is powerful. In fact I believe there are some very popular sites dedicated to this very notion positive and negitive.   

Fine, give me some examples of a game that was killed by word of mouth and not by financial ineptitude or technical failings. In other words, tell me how the negative populace killed a game that had the tools for success?

[Mrbloodworth]

Who was talking about killing games? I believe the topic was stifling creativity and going outside the box in design and mechanics, and the reactions resulting.

Responding as "Hes blaming the customer" is missing the point entirely, and funny enough, sort of proves his point.

Putting this here to be referenced:

"Personally, as a community manager who lives in the media or social media world every day, I think the social culture of video games is moving in a more negative direction as technology and social media continues to grow," Olin explained.

"Rather than growing with it, the trend seems to be devolving. More and more gamers seem to forget what this industry is all about.

"It's a creative industry – the most creative form of entertainment in existence," he continued. "Too many developers who try new things are getting burned by 'pundits' and angry entitled fans who look to be contrarian, sometimes simply for the sake of being contrarian.

"The only thing this attitude aims to achieve is stunt that creativity and innovation even further, which is something that no rational gamer looking to be entertained would want to do."

Bolding mine.

[Megrim]

You'll have to give some examples then.

[Mrbloodworth]

Its rather safe to say that many up and coming MMOs (Something I pay more attention to then other genres), that were technically sound, but had unique things to them likely suffered a great deal of loss in interest or potential sales due to the "Pundits" he speaks of slathering all over the web. Some, simply in defense of the game they are currently playing.

Have a trillion examples: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm

I think this site should know full well how easy it is for one small misconception to snowball into some "Fact" thats tossed around to death like wildfire. Many users don't care to do the legwork to find out if its true or not. Its irrelevant at that point.

[NiX]

I took it as being the difference between "I didn't like the game, but I appreciate what it tried to do" and "I didn't like the game because it's a piece of shit." Except the latter is filled with nitpicking of features that aren't broken/bad, but the implication is made. In the end painting the game in the light of being poorly made.

Can't think of an example because I tend to skip over that stuff and you probably won't notice it if you don't surf sites like NeoGAF.

It's not the only reason, but it is part of the reason why investors have no confidence in unproven formulas.

[Mrbloodworth]

Nix said what I was attempting to say a bit better. But I think its ingrained more than that, like I said, its as if its become the normal mode of discussion of a game, simply being disrespectful, disagreeable and sensationalist.

Hes not the first CM/DEV to say this stuff, and won't be the last. I bet many more would love to say it, but you see how its taken, look at the responses.



I wish I could track how many people would simply ignore the game in question, because I put the title "This game is the apex of hand holding" in a thread on popular media sites. The implication of that title alone will trigger some sort of hardcore "I'm to awesome for this kids game" response. Completely overshadowing all the work, polish, or uniqueness and good parts of a title in one line. Would be an awesome thing to know.

Its been dismissed to a good chunk of users. How much did that title dismiss, was it even true, does it matter?

[tgr]

It doesn't exactly help when what they're increasingly doing is putting more and more manpower into games which give the gamers less and less in return, and demanding more and more money for it (60 euro for black ops?). This means that they HAVE to sell like hotcakes, or "the market doesn't want the game". I'd be inclined to put that down as more of a cause for stifling innovation than "oh god they're saying mean things about my game on the intarweb".

Also, if he thinks that complaining about mean words on the internet is really going to help, then he's being optimistic at best. Counterpoint:

[Mrbloodworth]

Yes, but his job is to manage expectations, set the tone of discourse, and riffle through the bile to find the relevant feedback.

I don't wish that hell on anyone thees days. 98% of its is trash and bile. That ALONE has a huge impact in expanding creativity and quality. As he said, something that seems unintentional on the part of gamers, but non-the-less is the norm.

[tgr]

The only way to "fix that" is by making it so people can't be anonymous, or there will be more and more of this, because the kids today aren't exactly born with what I would call an overly active "maybe I shouldn't post that" feature.

Quick edit: Hell, I keep seeing the exact same thing on every god damned spot on the internet where people can post anonymously (and even when a full name is required). I can only hope for his sake that the posting he's wading through isn't as bad as what happens when you start people off on religious matters or abortion or other such fun topics.

[NiX]

The only way to "fix that" is by making it so people can't be anonymous, or there will be more and more of this, because the kids today aren't exactly born with what I would call an overly active "maybe I shouldn't post that" feature.

Quick edit: Hell, I keep seeing the exact same thing on every god damned spot on the internet where people can post anonymously (and even when a full name is required). I can only hope for his sake that the posting he's wading through isn't as bad as what happens when you start people off on religious matters or abortion or other such fun topics.

Anonymity isn't the issue. Even on Facebook, with their names front and center, my younger brother and his friends post the dumbest and most thoughtless shit.

But that's a discussion best left for another thread.

[IainC]

He's pretty clueless if he thinks that internet haters have a credible impact on game development decisions at that sort of level. If I had to make an ordered list of all the stuff that actually does 'stunt creativity and innovation' then 'mean things being said on the internet' would be a long way down. Like, not even on the first few pages.

If he means that 'sometime features that our design team thought would be awesome aren't properly appreciated for the pure nuggets of genius that they are' then he might have a point but he seems to be aiming higher than that. He spends his working day immersed in player feedback and commentary on the game he works for, he just hasn't yet learnt to filter that for perspective.

[Paelos]

He's pretty clueless if he thinks that internet haters have a credible impact on game development decisions at that sort of level. If I had to make an ordered list of all the stuff that actually does 'stunt creativity and innovation' then 'mean things being said on the internet' would be a long way down. Like, not even on the first few pages.

I agree, and that was my point as well. I don't disagree that mean people stunt creativity. I just think buggy shit and bad sales due to poor development stunt it a hell of a lot more.

[AutomaticZen]

Nix said what I was attempting to say a bit better. But I think its ingrained more than that, like I said, its as if its become the normal mode of discussion of a game, simply being disrespectful, disagreeable and sensationalist.

Hes not the first CM/DEV to say this stuff, and won't be the last. I bet many more would love to say it, but you see how its taken, look at the responses.

I wish I could track how many people would simply ignore the game in question, because I put the title "This game is the apex of hand holding" in a thread on popular media sites. The implication of that title alone will trigger some sort of hardcore "I'm to awesome for this kids game" response. Completely overshadowing all the work, polish, or uniqueness and good parts of a title in one line. Would be an awesome thing to know.

Its been dismissed to a good chunk of users. How much did that title dismiss, was it even true, does it matter?

What does that have to do with creativity?

Take your shot.  Failure or success. 

If a critic or pundit played a game and found it to be the 'apex of handholding', then that's their opinion.  That's the whole point.  Consumers have a bond with critics, pundits, and reviewers forged over time.  There are certain reviewers I outright ignore because their past reviews have told me that we just simply don't agree.

Just because you had an original idea doesn't mean I need to enjoy your game.  We have an entire section on what it boils down to.  'But Is It Fun?'  We had a thread about how much gaming time some of us have.  Games aren't cheap, time is limited, so you better bring your A game.  We don't all have disposable income to bust out on 'it had a good idea' if that idea and the surrounding game don't resonate with us.

I just don't see how you can say fans or reviewers are destroying creativity, when fans line up in front of games like Minecraft and Magicka. 

No, Bloodworth, he's making an asinine point because he's stuck dealing with crazy, angry PS3 players for the time being.

[Mrbloodworth]

I'm not talking about critics at review sites, I'm also not talking about evaluations based on any kind of fact, or even playing of the game.  Most reviews will say they don't like X because of XYZ, this is a far cry from those thoughts on social media sites or other gaming sites.

I disagree that such responses do not have impact on future game planning or decisions to try something not formulated. Especially in the age of viral spread of info. Not in the big budget game, the indi game is a much different animal, they are typically made by those beholden to no one (Minecraft/Mojang and Magicka/Paradox interactive).

[Paelos]

Also, customers getting angry and voting with their wallets isn't a bad thing. There are plenty of top-selling games that were creative and technically polished. They did well because of it. Are we beholden to generations of similar games because they set the stage to succeed? Of course, but that doesn't mean that innovation is frowned up due to negative press. When customers get tired of those derviatives, they stop paying for them and developers will explore other options to grab the market. It's not diminishing. If anything the market for users of video games is expanding with more disposable income than even, and they are more discerning and less likely to put up with the previous bullshit in past games.

Top Sellers that were creative:
The Sims
Guild Wars
Myst
Populous
Anno
Baldur's Gate
7th Guest
Tropico
SimCity
Civilization

[AutomaticZen]

I'm not talking about critics at review sites, I'm also not talking about evaluations based on any kind of fact, or even playing of the game.  Most reviews will say they don't like X because of XYZ, this is a far cry from those thoughts on social media sites or other gaming sites.

I disagree that such responses do not have impact on future game planning or decisions to try something not formulated. Especially in the age of viral spread of info. Not in the big budget game, the indi game is a much different animal, they are typically made by those beholden to no one (Minecraft/Mojang and Magicka/Paradox interactive).

So, you're talking the random herpderp of the internet?

Yeah, in full agreement with Paelos.  Your game will tank because its shitty before it will tank because the internet hates it.  Half the time, what the herpderp internet says is the exact opposite of what reality brings.  See the Wii and Kinect, that sell despite utter internet hate.  I've seen many a game rise on viral internet love.  I've yet to see viral hate kill one.

That your shareholders or executives think internet herpderp matters is a larger problem.  

[Mrbloodworth]

Again, not talking about "killing a game".  Also, Paelos, most of those games, are before the age we now live in.

[ghost]

Again, not talking about "killing a game".  Also, Paelos, most of those games, are before the age we now live in.

It's telling that most of the games on that list have been through multiple iterations of sequels. 

[Merusk]

That your shareholders or executives think internet herpderp matters is a larger problem.  

Shareholders and execs are guys with money and guys in suits, normally age 45 and up.  If they go looking for anything all they're going to see is random herpderp and have better things to do than engross themselves in internet culture to know what is and is not herpderp.  So yeah, it matters.

[Paelos]

Again, not talking about "killing a game".  Also, Paelos, most of those games, are before the age we now live in.

Yep, and they've been repeated again and again because they were good and, here's the key, they keep selling. What stifles creativity? The fact that the audience favors something else to the tune of millions of copies sold.

If you're not talking about "killing a game" what are you talking about? Stifling the creative exchange of ideas? Preventing thinking outside the box? In every case, I'll point to money as the primary cause. That money is being provided by consumers who like what they like, even if you don't like the fact that they like it.

[AutomaticZen]

Again, not talking about "killing a game".  Also, Paelos, most of those games, are before the age we now live in.

I apologize for the hyperbole.  

What examples can you put forth that internet outcry has resulted in a game being less creative than its original intent?   I can understand implementation issues.  Lack of budget.  Intent outstripping reality.  But I've yet to hear of 'the internet thought this creative idea was horrible.  Scrap that system completely.'  Generally, it goes the opposite way.  For instance, Splinter Cell Conviction started back in the day with some systems that fans were somewhat intrigued about, like hiding in plain sight, but it retained a firm emphasis on stealth.

http://www.vg247.com/2010/04/16/interview-splinter-cell-convictions-maxime-beland/

Maxime Béland: We are totally committed to innovation and quality, so when we started working on the game four years ago, the team was very dedicated to this and we drove innovation into every field, whether in technology, gameplay or character design.

Some of the risks we took in these areas paid off, such as the technology, but some didn’t work out as well as we’d hoped, such as some elements of the gameplay. We felt we went a little bit too far from what the Splinter Cell brand was about, and we needed to refocus on the core values: stealth, tension, cool moves and so on. Due to this, we kept all the great tools we already had, such as an amazing lighting engine and the dynamic environment, then we focused the gameplay more on the Splinter Cell values and strengths, such as light and shadows, athletic moves or gadgets to provide to the player the best possible Splinter Cell experience.

Splinter Cell has a long history and is a great brand because it has always revolved around some core pillars that have a really wide appeal. It’s a series filled with tension, tactics, outwitting your enemies and really delivering on the feeling of being a predator. Of course, what it means to be a stealth game has changed over time, as has Splinter Cell itself. We used to have things like three alarms and the mission would be failed, the light and noise meter, and detailed radars and maps. We looked at all of these elements and what they brought to the game, and worked to execute those concepts in a new, faster, more action-oriented experience.

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/06/09/interview-alexandre-parizeau-talks-splinter-cell-conviction-e/

Well, the first thing is ... when we showed the game it was very early at the time and we were really trying to innovate and try something different for the franchise. When you try to innovate, some things work and some things don't. Not necessarily as you would like. What we tried to do in the last couple years was to ground all those things, so those things still exist. They are still apart of the game. We've still got crowded, or simulated environments. We're still using the same technology and we're building on what we had shown.

In the end, they went with the final product, which put off a number of Splinter Cell fans on the internet.  But it still worked decently for them.

[Mrbloodworth]

I'll point to money as the primary cause.

I never said it was not.  Its very hard to discuss things if the only things allowed are extremes.

As to examples, its potentially easier to point to game designs that are direct responses to "herpderp" than it is to track or display the impact that the "herpderp" has on decision points during design. Typically the only ones that get noticed though, are extreme examples done by houses unknown (Darkfall, Mortial online, many other uber niche games based on some sort of ideological badge of honor that usealy has zero to do with good design or fun, and more to do with appeasing "herpderp" as you call it)

A good chunk though of what I was talking about I already explained, tone in discussions has changed at the same time it became more assessable to more people.

you could make the best game ever, but some users would be condemning it, because this in a small part, has become the normal mode of conversation. IE: Big giant cynical contrary rants. I have even seen extremely long accusations and tirades as a way to ask questions. Or some of the most insulting, snide cometary and personal attacks as a the normal form of discussion, or info gathering. Its very odd, and its not just in games.

I truly don't know how else to explain it.

[Merusk]

I do. Anything positive is automatically labeled fanboi-ism and immediately discarded.  Cynical, jaded and possibly hateful tones give you 'cred' and are held up as being the zenith of objective discourse.

Even this forum falls into it on a routine basis.

[01101010]

Anyone else find it "funny" this topic is being discussed on THESE boards? 

[Mrbloodworth]

I did, every time I typed cynical.

[Rendakor]

Am I the only one who noticed this gem in the original article:

Of course, Treyarch knows what it's talking about when it comes to disgruntled gamers. There has been plenty of mud slung in its direction recently over the current state of Black Ops on PlayStation 3.

Maybe the First Strike DLC pack, out today, will help smooth things over.

Which is all well and good, except First Strike is only out on Xbox for the moment, with a PS3/PC release to follow. 

[Engels]

BW, all your comments are sane and reasonable...assuming you don't know what a complete and utter clusterfuck Black Ops for the PC was for the first 3 weeks of launch. It was so bad that many people just gave up on it. Subsequent patches have made it 'ok' to play on a PC, but its still woefully cludgy for a AAA title.

If Treyarch is getting aggro, good. They deserve every iota of nerd rage coming their way. There was simply no excuse for the level of horrible they put out.

I cannot comment on Xbox or PS3 platforms.

[Mrbloodworth]

I don't believe his comments were in response to "What have you done to fix the PC version". Otherwise I would agree thats its relevant.

Full QnA


Amazingly, the question was omitted from the euro gamer interjection piece. Part of the problem, is also the out of context but i'm going to comment anyway "Games journalism". Its been taken as a response to the very valid criticism and anger from users.

And thats just false.

[Paelos]

I truly don't know how else to explain it.

I guess I don't get your point, then. That people are more cynical on the internet? Sure, they are. That it has some effect on the gaming industry? I would have to be completely foolish to say it doesn't.

I guess I don't see the purpose of writing about it or putting it out there as an idea if you don't believe it plays a large part in gaming development. We don't have to talk about extremes for a point to have a relevent effect, but we also shouldn't be listening to a dude who released a shitty game bitch about the community when it has only a marginal effect on the outcome.

As he's saying in that article, to him it's the BIGGEST problem. I think he's got his head up his ass.

EDIT: Which you seem to agree with seeing your recent post.