“The joy of sharing has been driven from me“

This goes for both for and against, but against is usually easier. Famous examples include Dropbox (here), iPod (Slashdot), etc.

True, but Some open source communities are good candidates for "most entitled consumers".

> I've seen it on HN also I will ever remember the launch of Dropbox here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863

The fact that people care about an insult or attack in a comment section of a random site they read about a game is what surprises me. What lives some people must live for this to be something that even registers as an annoyance.

I think I'll play through the first two parts with my children and if they're interesed I'll get this one as well.

I said this a while ago as well[1], but there's a strong bias towards people who are unhappy with $something (for any value of $something). If you think everything is just great then you don't actually all that much to say beyond "hey, looks great!" Sometimes you can expand that to a paragraph of two about what you like, but overall it's hard to write a substantive comment. But if you're not happy with something then it's much easier to write a paragraph or two about what you're unhappy with.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31454200

Huge amount of tribalism too, over which platform they 'support', they believe just because they use a particular service then they can expect all sorts of demands on it, rather than just casually playing whatever game they want on whatever platform they like.

The difference with video games is that developers themselves build parasocial communities for their games. Playtesting and marketing are so interlinked.

Recently I feel like there's a large performative element to it as well. Like virtue signaling but without the virtue. I guess its just one incarnation of in crowd bullying. Hipsterism and the like, but this current incarnation has a lot more anger to it.

Replace "gamers" with "book readers" and it should become obvious why this is not an insightful comment, but rather an expression of some kind of existential angst mixed with outdated stereotypes. Gamers ceased being a distinct consumer group when the medium of games went mainstream and ceased to heave anything resembling a coherent subculture.

Working incredibly hard to build a product served to a group of people that are often hurtful emotionally stunted man-children is just a deeply demoralizing experience.

Obviously, many gamers aren't like that. But a fucking whole lot of them are, and they are extremely vocal, and it doesn't take many of them to suck the joy out of the job.

Imagine a bar where every time you walked in the door a half dozen dudes invariably turned around on their barstools and told you your clothes look like shit, your face is disgusting, you hair style is stupid, you smell like trash and, you should just fucking kill yourself now. How often would you want to go there?

Unfortunately, I think games themselves often encourage this mentality. Most games are about making the player feel empowered inside a virtual universe that exists purely for their own exploitation and satisfaction. The whole point of playing games is to get an escape from the consequences of our actions.

People that are strongly drawn to that or spend too much time in that mindset are basically training themselves for a toxic mindset when it comes to interacting with actual humans.

I think a lot about this talk by Max Kreminski: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvlZinAvpwg

In there, if I remember right, he refers to many games as "entitlement simulators", which is a profound truth.

In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so...

The industry is filled with people who are entitled, the idea that game devs and publishers aren't entitled when they've been stealing PC games for 30+ years since 1997 beginning with ultima online (MMO's were the industries bid to undermine the PC game market and back end every big budget AAA title, we got steam six years after UO, lineage in 98, everquest in 99, etc).

That means every mmo would have been a regular PC RPG with level editor + multiplayer embedded in the exe like every PC game during the 90's and early 2000's before they figured out the average gamer was a computer illiterate moron.

Windows 10/11 and TPM proves the average game developer has it good, microsoft is finally killing piracy and removing ownership of PC's with the help of intel and AMD over the next 20 years, so just remember, in Microsofts, intels and the game industries new hardware drm world, you will not have access to your games, you will be able to be banned from games you ostensibly "own" because the game industry has been engaging in industrial scale game theft and fraud by selling you incomplete software applications VS quake 1-3, warcraft 1-3, diablo 1-2, in the 90's.

The entire tech industry desperately wanted to take us back to mainframe computing of the 60's where software and hardware vendors own your PC and you have no control over it.

So gamers don't measure up into the giant ego's of game devs and publishers who literally lied to the public so they could kill the PC and jack up game prices and remove basic features like multiplayer.

Google the list of all the games who've had their multiplayer shut down, that is only possible because the games are coded fraudulently to begin with, where as the 90's games mostly all still work just fine if you want to play them lan or over the internet because they were honestly coded local exe's.

Non-gamers may not understand the difference between a pay-to-win mobile game, and a story-driven RPG action PC game. They're both called "games", but they're in fact different products with different experience. Many of the game companies that made a name with "proper" games are now using the same franchises to create low budget cash grabs.

I think gamers are just asking for companies to stop destroying existing franchises in the name of making more money, and often in the name of some ideology. If we say, well that is their right, it's their IP, then gamers also have a right to express their feelings on the matter.

It's spelled out in the HN guidelines; if you see violations, then downvote/flag.

In 2015, a new guideline was added; it's still right at the end:

"When something isn't good, you needn't pretend that it is, but don't be gratuitously negative. "

https://www.ycombinator.com/blog/new-hacker-news-guideline

But ironically, I feel the opposite way about the Pokemon franchise, which has gone through a similar progression, with a change in art style towards a more slick art style along with a barrage of new game mechanics that I personally didn't really care so much for.

I think that ultimately people just want to consume more content that is similar to what they are already used to. It's why, I also think, bands w/ distinctly recognizable style like the Red Hot Chili Peppers did so well. The vitriol does seem completely unnecessary, though, I agree.

Oh, that's easy. It's reminiscent of free Flash games popular a couple decades ago. Vector graphics are somewhat less common in games these days, so my first impression was that the art style looked a bit cheap and dated.

I guess there could be an argument against playing too many games as a kid hiding in there.

Personally, I like it, but then, the only art style I've disliked of any Monkey Island games are the two Special Edition remakes.

It's one thing to know that someone on the internet dislikes you. It's another to see someone do it within earshot at your favourite pub.

People on the internet make the sort of quips you'd never make within slapping distance of the subject. They do it where the subject hangs out.

Big Bad John is a strawman, because if Big Bad John was abusing his children or beating his wife, I wouldn't confront him either. I'd call the police. It doesn't reflect at all the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the criticism.

Also, we should probably get over that pretense that anonymity ends brutal criticism. Plenty of people are happy to sign pretty brutal criticism, or even to make a brand out of it.

The thing that it's easy to do is to attack "haters" or "cynics" because they don't really exist. They're what happens when people define other people's motivations by the effect on them personally. Somebody hates me? They're a "hater." Somebody says that something I think will work will definitely not work? They're a "cynic" that doesn't believe anything can improve and hate people who have retained the ability to dream.

The same people leaving comments on this game encouraging the designers to kill themselves will agree completely with this reasoning, because it has very little content.

There are customers who are most definitely not right. The kind that cheat in online games, lie about it, dox you when you catch them. The kind of customer that tries to break into your systems or DDOS you. The kind that try to steal from you and your partners, or that harass other players, or that post pornography to your forums. The kind that make bots or thousands of fake accounts. The kind that build phishing sites and steal other customers' credentials, empty out their wallets and sell all of their assets.

It's a small proportion of customers that do this, but that's still a large enough number that it's a big deal. (Kindly don't respond, "Well, all you have to do is put technical measures in place to prevent all of this." You need to have been in the trenches dealing with them before you can have a valid opinion on mitigations).

The customer is not always right.

Nothing wrong with a preference but online everyone bikesheds this. I heard endless complaints about Wind Waker cel shaded graphics and that was one of peoples most favorite thing about the game.

Sometimes I wonder how a site can disable or discourage bikeshedding in their comment section. It's probably impossible or needs so little traffic a moderator can handle it (1K comment per second is impossible)

Maybe, but there are too many comments for a flat page like that to be useful anyway (other than the first 50 or so comments.) Nothing of value was lost.

He left behind the critical comments that were otherwise polite.

I think you are wrong. The assumption that he is reacting to the tone is correct. He explicitly said that he is closing comments due to personal attacks.

I think the style is "ugly", but that could work well--especially in a game about pirates.

The problem is that the backgrounds and animation look "cheap phone game". And that's not going to make people happy.

The worst part is that I suspect that this is intentional--and that's what is REALLY pissing both sides off. Ron Gilbert probably wants this to be playable on lower end tablets and phones since phone revenue generally dwarfs PC revenue--so getting called out on this is not going to go over well. By the same token, the rabid fanbase is PC centric and is looking at a game that sure looks like it has made significant compromises for phones--they're going to be more than a bit upset about that.

To top it off, Gilbert is used to getting nothing but positive reception and now is getting slammed. Furthermore, the project is too far along to actually do anything that might be able to mitigate the criticism. Whoops.

Our social structures and social instincts are made for small groups of people in a tribe, distrusting outsiders. The Internet can be great for humanity, but we're 200 years away from learning how to use it correctly.

The question here is: "Is this a really innovative graphical design that will get praised by future generations but is misunderstood now" or "Is this just a bad decision that the creator is unwilling to own". I tend to think it's the latter. Ultimately the sales will tell.

Obviously I'm not defending the minority of insane comments made my mentally unwell people, but it does feel to me that the rage-quit was prompted more by the general negative sentiment people expressed about the looks of the game rather than by the personal attacks.

We have seen the same thing happen to Star Wars where the legitimate criticism was painted as toxicity of the fandom.

To quote another HN comment I saved recently:

> “Ultimately, the reason some people get upset when a series changes isn’t because the new game is new, but because the old games get their future cut off. Getting a sequel you don’t want closes the door more definitively than creating a new IP. Nobody wants to see the corpse of something they love puppeted around when it could just be laid to rest.”

Take, for example, this comment by someone calling themselves _Proud Retro Fascist_:

  > Nice attempt at silencing critics. The game will fail because it is 
  > objectively hideous and you will only have yourself to blame.
  >
  > Inthe end all you will have achieved is killing off Monkey Island once more. 
  > This time permanently.
  >
  > All you had to do was make a game with an art style that appeals to 
  > everyone, whatever it might be. Instead, you opted for the most repugnant, 
  > revolting and hideous TRASH art style that anybody has ever bared witness to 
  > in a video game. You must be out of your mind.
  >
  > All said, try hiring good artists next time... if there is a next time, that 
  > is.
  >
  > RIP MONKEY ISLAND

Stay strong, Ron Gilbert, don't let the assholes get you down.

And art style quality is subjective. I, for one, don’t think he made a mistake. If it does hurt sales, it is an objective evidence that it was a mistake commercially speaking. Which is just one dimension. He might still be happy with his decision.

Regardless of sales effect though, I think people feel entitled to be heard by him. They are not happy only with voting with their wallets, or just telling friends that they didn’t like the art style, that are making a point of going to him pointing fingers that he messed up. That’s not fine in my view even if they do not use hateful words, which a minority does. But the majority is still pointing fingers at him.

For me Ron is doing the right thing in managing all this. Stop sharing stuff, close comments, go back working on it silence. If, because of that, the game is a commercial failure, so be it. It is his risk to take. People are acting outraged no because Ron is screaming rude things back to them, because he is not. People are outraged that he just won’t change the art style at this point. That he is not pulling a Sonic on this. And I think the behavior of those people demanding change is just silly. And dangerous when potentialzed by the scale of the internet.

So good for Ron going back to silence. It will be better for him and the team. And, I think, better for the game as well.

Top Gun 2 is great example of understanding the audience. it was a love letter to the fans.

Gilbert made it all about himself with no awareness of what other people thought. That's his biggest mistake. He keeps saying he making the game HE wants to make. He really doesn't care about the fans, and they noticed. I strongly suspect it will only get uglier between the deep monkey island fans who kept the brand alive and Gilbert.

If Ron wants to make art, then make art. But Monkey Island was never art for the sake of art. A far more successful revival that pleased the fans was Broken Sword 5.

Personally I think Ron is an artist and I'll buy whatever he's selling.

At this point I don't really mind what direction they take at the end of the day. I love the characters, and just want to see where they end up.

I do hope we get another game where they play with Claymation style animation, though.

I've always tended to be grateful but not necessarily think about leaving comments, over the years I'm starting to realise that it's important to offset negative entitled comments that always seem to come out of the woodwork.

[0] honestly I'm also a bit put off by it, but that might just be because it is unfamiliar, which isn't the same thing as bad. Besides, since I consider graphics to be one of the least important things in games I don't think it will affect my enjoyment that much.

Says whom? You demonstrate your points by showing that blockbusters make money, which says nothing about whether they are art. They're entirely different dimensions of the same work, and hard to compare. Obviously the accounting department will have a different point of view than the creative director.

You're also arguing that people making new films on an existing franchise should stick to giving the fans what they want. But who's to say the fans even know what they want? They might not care, they might be mistaken, they might misremember things. For example, people clamoring for World of Warcraft Classic or a back-to-the-roots Sonic game back in the day weren't really hoping for a product per se, but rather to go back to a time when the product was more culturally relevant (and they were younger).

A new direction can also capture a new audience, which might make fans negligible. For instance the Star Wars prequel are still divisive but a large, younger portion of the fandom likes them very much.

And what fans are we talking about anyway? You give Spider-man as an example. But there have been thousand of pieces of Spider-man media, with wildly different art styles and tones. Which one is "what the fans want"? Disney went with the Marvel formula precisely because it's a lowest-common denominator style of film, accessible to non-fans.

And finally another obvious problem with your thesis is that nothing new can be made if it is required to give to the masses what they want for sure. Almost by definition, it is unknown whether any new concept, style, tone, or property are what people want. At the same time it is known that the public at least somewhat values originality, so companies take risks and release films such as Pirates of the Caribbean or games like Assassin's Creed.

Why? By "allowed to voice their disklike", I assume you mean outside of the privacy of their own home.

  > tl;dr I can't understand getting mad at the Internet for being the Internet 
  > in 2022, it will never get better, if anything it will only get worse [...]

Honestly, I'm trying to say something about this argument that falls within the site's guidelines for discussion and I can't really figure out a way to.