One thing that does happen in public forums, is that new people keep showing up, and often repeat old questions (and assertions) because it's new to them. Old arguments resume as newly rephrased/updated replies that are quite familiar to members that have read it all before from the last several times it was posted.
When newcomers come with the same things, they apparently didn't bother to read the thread, but I wouldn't call them whiners. Only if they repeatedly do so, are they whiners. As that is the definition of whining. It's about the *same* people who endlessly whine about the same things. If it was merely a problem of newcomers, you could make one big post where the 'oldies' put all their gripes and frustrations and demands, update that regularly if something new came along, and for the rest guide people who wish to complain also to have a look there. It would drastically reduce the repetitiveness then, of newcomers.
But of course, in reality that isn't the problem. You already see now, even with whiny oldtimers, that THEY themselves keep making and making and repeating the same things. It has nothing to do with newcomers, or even trying to establish a good communication with the devs to see what improvements may be possible in the game - it's just venting frustrations, sometimes thinly disguised as questions. It's the "I want it, and I'm not going to stop nagging until they give me what I want". In fact, that's almost literally how some have said it, so the spoiled-brat invocation is rather spot-on.
*It's worse if (or when?) member is told by moderation staff that they are not to repeat the points... (as would happen on Bethsoft), but they would still get direct questions and accusations—which they were forbidden to properly answer; and their lack of reply would get pounced upon— mistaken as a weakness, or seen as an advantage.
Well, luckily I'm not staff or a moderator, then! And that's just the conundrum the staff and mods are in, when responding: they're damned if they do, and they're damned if they don't. They have to remain polite and cordial, even if other people are rude to them. They have to go through these incessant wailings and whinings, with demands that are unrealistic - certainly this late in the game - and sometimes unwanted, but they can't tell they're a bunch of whiners with spoiled-brats complexes, because they don't want to escalate things.
I, however, have no such qualms or restrictions. And thus I say it as it is: people who whine, are whiners. And people who don't stop nagging until they get what they want even though one should know better, are spoiled brats.
In the case where complaints [often meant as benevolent advice]
were directed at the studio, at developers [correctly or incorrectly]
perceived as uninformed, or on the wrong path... the tendency is to post verbose and anywhere appropriate, in the hopes that it will be read by the studio.
Mostly brash-verbose. Often inappropriately. Which is what immature behavior is.
Regular forumites will get over exposed to it, and it will seem like every post from a given member is always harping on the same thing, or similar complaints.
Well, except it does not *seem* that way, it largely *IS* that way - at least with certain members.
See my solution above, if one truly wants to reduce overexposure.
In the end, when they realize that the forum is not a place to offer advice to developers, and having seen their's and other's advice summarily ignored——occasionally even seen the perversely opposite implemented... one can become embittered to it and them.
Which again means being immature, spoiled-brat-like, and even spiteful.
Afterwards, one might continue to post either in honest (but misguided) hope
Certainly misguided. Mostly dishonest. - unless they suffer from an unbelievable naivety, which I don't attribute to many of the people who whine.
that at least —someone— (preferably a developer) will eventually reply with comprehension, if not actually take the advice to heart... or they post in spite, just to make it unavoidably obvious that the advice was there, and could have been heeded to avoid the later pitfalls that they warned about.
Well, I largely agree with that one. Which is why I say they should move on, instead of souring the grapes endlessly.
*Just so you know... Though _noblesse_oblige_ has chosen to be a jerk towards me personally, I tend to agree with most of [his?] posted sentiments & observations of the games, and the reasons given for them; often preempting my own similar post on the topic.
And just so you know - well, I might or might not have spoken with you before, and I'm too lazy to check, but I don't feel personally towards anyone in particular. I'm just getting fed up with the whining. But I'll say once again that, if you think you have good arguments, feel free to say so. Even *I* have had some suggestions for improvements made to Inxile, and I also had a complaint about crashes. But you say it once, maybe twice if you think the other party genuinely didn't understand what you meant (or asks for more info), and keep it polite and amicable, *and then you stop*. Once you made your point, you made your point. If they don't react the way you want, someone with some maturity does not fall into spite, but moves on.
I disagree that it's subjective, and will say that it is very possible to like (or to dislike) a game, movie, book, image, or musical performance for reasons the person might not realize or understand... or even for the side effects of such reasons.
Hoh, my friend! (colloquial use of the word
) Of anything, I couldn't disagree more than with your disagreement. But first of all: when using definitions, one have to agree to the dictionary definitions, hence to not fall into the semantic "it means something else for me" trap. And then, I want to point to the specifics of the claim: not that there are observably differences to be noted between the games, or even the lore of the games, but that they are *vital*.
It's outright impossible to objectively demonstrate to any strong degree (let alone "prove" in the only way that we know of getting as close to objective as we can; with the scientific methodology) that something is vital, because how detrimental or vital something is, is per definition subjective, since it's a VALUE, not an observational fact. And that value is given by individuals, which means the value is derived from what they think is vital.
For Instance: In Fallout, it was a vital tenet that there always be at least three solutions to [at least] the main quests; so that character development didn't lock the player out. So much so that they would even cheat to make sure of it; like having a certain guard always fail to notice when he is pick-pocketed, as a last minute means to satisfy the rule. This made the game seem more open-ended than it was, and let the player's PC really shine (through their abilities). I am sure that many players hadn't a clue about that, but they appreciated the effects of it.
Well, I'll play advocate of the devil here, just to show that it's definitely subjective ALL of it.
It was NOT a vital tenet. I think two is enough. I found the character development didn't lock the player out with it. I liked the fact he would get pick-pocketed and didn't notice, and I certainly didn't think it was vital to the game whether he did or not.
Bard's Tale  had the mechanic that one had to make it back to town alive [risking random encounters—even in town, before they could advance], and that the Bard needed to drink & carouse; spell casters needed the Sun. This added a layer of tension to the game, and anchored the party to human settlements on the surface world.
I thought it was annoying and didn't put a layer of tension, but a layer of burden. It was certainly not vital.
Etc, etc. I'm not going to keep... going on, because you give a plethora of examples, but hopefully you understand my point of playing the devils' advocate: while you certainly are convinced of your stance, it's coming from you, just like it's coming from someone else. But everyone can have opposing ideas or feelings about something, and thus, it does not matter how many examples you give, someone else may find or like the opposite. The *value* you give it, your measurement of it being detrimental or vital for the game, is subjective, and inherently so. If you would claim: reducing it to two questions destroyed the game, because it was detrimental to the game, is not an objective measurement, it's your own value. If someone *disagreed* with you, he could well say: "no, see, I'm playing the game with two questions, and it works just fine." then: "But you feel locked" - "No, I don't" - "but it's missing a sense of complexity" - "No, I find it complex enough". Etc.
You see? It's ALWAYS going to be a matter of what one person thinks is valuable, important or vital, and another. When people think diametrically opposed to each other, the debate will never - ever -stop. Which was the point I made in my former post.
Now, I don't really care if people chat a bit about their ideas and suggestions, far from it; that can be quite interesting. It's just that one shouldn't nag someone else with it endlessly, especially if there was no invitation or hint to begin with. I shouldn't have to explain the difference between some back-and-forth about ideas, and constant nagging and repeating the same thing over and over to try get what you want and impose your wishes for the game on someone else, even if that someone else are people from Inxile. The former can be pleasant, the latter is obnoxious. If everyone would keep their attitude along those lines, the general atmosphere on the fora would be better as well. Having some open brainstorm-session, or spouting one's sour grapes, are two different things.