I recently bought MLB the Show 12 for my PS3 after really enjoying it on my Vita. Well, I find the game almost unplayable due to uncompromising difficulty in virtually every mundane task even when set on the lowest difficulty. Pitching, hitting, fielding. It’s all way too hard for me to have fun. The computer seems to steal at every opportunity, my fielders are throwing away routines tosses to first and unless I hit my pitch timing EXACT, my pitcher won’t throw in the strike zone no matter where I aim it.
Anyway I went on Amazon to read some user reviews and see if others are having the same issues I am and there are some. But I was more blown away by the number of fan boys that seem to go from negative review to negative review just to tell the reviewer how they are wrong and they just suck at the game. This is a 5 star game and you are a 5 star loser etc… Even after the reviewer has chimed back in multiple times to say “look, this is only MY opinion. Why don’t you back off?”
Why do people do this? Why does my negative review effect your enjoyment of the game? It’s really jarring and I wonder if these review hounds even realize how insane they sound.
It’s for the same reason that I get absolutely hounded when I say that country music and R&B are horrible and I despise them: someone has something invested in it and will not stand for someone “bad-mouthing” their favorite stuff. There is something, though you may not know what it is, that you will go all-out to defend. It’s normal, everybody has something that they think is worth defending.
1.) Tribalism
2.) People don’t want to think they’ve wasted their money (this is more true with consoles than with games, but I suppose I’d say there’s still an element of it at the game-level)
I can understand that but why would people who already own the game go to Amazon to read reviews and get into a pissing match over it? I can understand going to a game site to do it but why a sales site?
I think it’s largely a matter of investment. The games we get invested in are taken by the gaming community to reflect the kind of character we are, which is why you don’t leave Operation Flashpoint and Call of Duty fans in the same room with a sharp object. And “broken” games are the one with the most rabid fanbase of all, since those who have completed them have ascended unto a level of Gamer Ubermensch who can not only utilize the intended functions of the gameplay mechanics with perfected skill, but also ruthlessly analyze it for the most minute glitch or weakness which affords them an advantage. [See: Fighting game fans.]
Thus, a community where people who’ve completed Demon and Dark Souls’ NG++++ walk around with the recognized equivalent of a thousand-yard-stare and plenty of elbow-space, but people who thrive on well-made games [read: games that intend for you to win] are viewed as cattle shuttled between one AAA Cash Cow and the next.
It’s not rational or even sane, but I think it reflects the gamer mindset schism between those who view games as rail-bound entertainment and its’ worth derived from its’ level of polish and the gamers who hunt for the sense of accomplishment engendered by accomplishing something that intentionally or unintentionally isn’t supposed to be possible.
Bingo. I love . If you don’t, then you aren’t part of my X tribe, and I must either convince you that you are wrong, or ritually kill you. Since ritually killing you would be a pain in the ass and probably mean getting out of my computer chair, instead I will just type up ten paragraphs worth of badly-spelled scatological insults and post it on the Internet.
I also think it may be because on some level, the “likers” think the critics are saying, to them personally, “you’re a tasteless moron for enjoying it.”
Put simply, they’re taking it personally. The logic goes something like this- you post a negative review of something they like, and they take it like you’re saying that their judgment and taste are crappy, and therefore you’ve insulted them, and the game that they like. (or football team, or movie, or book, or whatever)
It’s kind of an immature reaction, if you ask me. I have my opinions about the video game genres I play, but I don’t take it personally if the Call of Duty types don’t like Battlefield and vice-versa.
It does get different if someone posts a review that says 'X sucks, and the people who like X screw goats in the anus", because that’s actually an attack of sorts. Still immature to react to that, but I can understand that a little bit more.
I don’t know the causes, but it’s an unfortunate phenomenon; one that can make user reviews unreliable.
You know how on Goodreads or Amazon books-- excluding political or notorious works-- tend to have high ratings because people buy and review books they know they’ll like? Gamers will review games they know they won’t like and never bothered playing in the first place. For example, Out of the Park Baseball 2007, which is the second highest rated PC game of all time on Metacritic.com-- on the basis of a mere 5 reviews-- currently has 401 user ratings. That’s very few for such a highly rated game, but a lot for such an obscure one. A look at the 50 some negative user reviews shows that they’re mostly 0s and 1s and usually have something unkind to say about the system that allowed a such a game to beat their faves. Accusations of bribery are common. Some admit to never even hearing of Out of the Park, let alone playing it. One is 206 words long, mostly starting with F.
I’ve seen the opposite as well, of course, where a fan will give highest marks to a game in order to “balance out” negative reviews.
I’m a gamer. I know that there are baseless stereotypes about gamers-- we’re all kids, we’re all unemployed, we all smell like cat urine and dress up like elves. However, after reading-- and sometimes participating in-- endless debates that veer inexorably toward flamewars about game vs game and platform vs platform, I must admit that gaming has its fair share of cranks and then some.
