svdp wrote: ↑
July 15th, 2019, 3:11 am
Well, one can't speak for every forum or game, of course, but I think in most instances it's also due to people not simply giving a valid complaint, but doing so repetitively and excessively, ad nauseam. In the definition of "whining" the keyword is "repeatedly" after all. Once you've said what you wanted to say, there is no point in keep harking on about it. One may delude oneself that being whiny about it will improve things, but it won't. No-one likes whiners - except maybe other whiners that have the same pet-peeves. So it's actually counterproductive, even if the goal would genuinely be to improve the game.
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.
*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.
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.
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.
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. Afterwards, one might continue to post either in honest (but misguided) hope 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.
*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.
Also, but that as an aside: while one can prove differences with past lore, it's near impossible to prove the differences are "vital", since that's highly subjective. That's why such debates never end between the two sides. I'm rather for the side that don't act like spoiled brats, whatever side that may be (but it's usually not the whiny side, thus).
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.
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 pickpocketed, 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.
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.
The games allowed up to eight PCs; they supported accepting (or even forced recruiting) of characters encountered along the way. This allowed for radical short term party changes, and varied tactics in combat; depending upon who was alive, their strengths, and social disposition at the time.
When you lose these traits, you lose part of the series identity—even if some players never noticed them before. Missing pieces can affect the overall design of a sequel. Eventually these 'sequels' can bear little resemblance to the core titles, and are no longer offering the series' tenets, and core gaming experience.
This doesn't have to happen. There are game (book & movie) sequels that fully deliver on the core experience of a series, despite major difference, and upgraded improvements. It is the difference of building upon an established foundation, vs building something unrelated, but skinned to appear familiar—or sometimes not even that. What you get from the latter may be something grand on its own merits, but does its skin make it a truly appropriate sequel, when under the hood it's a totally different
beast? (And who is to say what is subjective?)