How to Be An Effective Angry Gamer

[JoeGKushner]

Very well reasoned but a load of nonsense.

Or has the errata from various books that was incorporated into places like the Spell Compendium finally hit? I mean, people are saying you have to pay for the errata because it's no where else right? Unless that's changed?

Sorry, in my opinion (because lord knows if you don't say that someone will say you're stating a fact)game companies need to keep gamers happy, not the other way around.

 

[Andre]

Very well reasoned but a load of nonsense...(snip)...Sorry, in my opinion (because lord knows if you don't say that someone will say you're stating a fact)game companies need to keep gamers happy, not the other way around.

This reminds me of a discussion we had at work recently. As well as implementing customer contracts, my team has to research and fix customer disputes - and many disputes are caused by the same problems, process breaks, etc. I suggested that we create a checklist of the most common dozen or so problems and check those things when setting up new customers.

Immediately everyone in the group objected, stating (correctly) that it wasn't our job to catch other groups' mistakes. Those groups should do their job right and not expect us to fix things for them.

In a sense the group was perfectly correct - it's not fair for us to have to fix someone else's mistakes. That stance was logical, principled...and completely beside the point.

The customer sure doesn't care who makes the mistake - what matters is that it not reach the customer. And if we're the last step in the process, we're the last chance to catch those things. And given that we have to do the work to research and fix the disputes, a nice bonus is that we'll end up with less work, not more.

Same thing with Mike's comments. Sure we have a right to expect publishers to meet certain standards, since we're paying them to do so. And nothing says we have to be nice when they don't measure up. But standing on that principle isn't effective. If we want publishers to do better (as opposed to just ranting) we need to use the methods that will work - exactly the things Mike refers to.

And publishers who don't return the favor? Just don't buy their stuff.

 

[GVDammerung]

. . . SNIP . . .

Oh lordy. Where to start. I'm just going to dive in.

Excellent point about including specifics. This is spot on. A publisher or writer cannot correct something if they are not advised what it is believed needs correcting.

As far as being positive and polite and seeing that effect change, there are some problems.

As bizarre as it may sound, game publishers and writers are celebrities after a fashion among many gamers and like the Hollywood type of celebrity, they attract their fair share of very devoted fans. Call these fans fan-boys or what-have-you, by whatever name they idolize their gaming "pro" heros and will not hear a bad word spoken about them or their products. In fact, they will laud in one way or another almost anything their hero is involved with. These fans create a noise barrier that a critic has to penetrate to be heard. Casting criticism in as positive a light as possible either cannot very effectively penetrate this noise barrier or the mildly critical commentary gets lost in the sea of praise. In short, only a sharply critical response will be noticed amidst the waves of "at-a-boys" or "apologies" from the devoted fans, or it stands the best chance of being noticed, if you prefer.

Matters are made worse by "the fanboy counter attack." If a critic strikes too close to the bone and/or the devoted fan feels that either the criticism is too strident (and to the devoted fan what serious criticism is ever mild enough) or if they feel the critic has found a weak spot in their hero's armor, the devoted attacks the critic, lauding the hero all the while. The noise barrier just got worse but something else just happened that is worse for the critic - EVEN THE MOST POLITE CRITIC. The "fan boy counter attack" just made the critic the issue, not the criticism. Now, enter the Moderators with the ban-hammer or the like, shutting down the thread and silencing the critic and the devoted fan. Lost is the criticism, valid or invalid.

Oh but things are not done playing themselves out yet! As you note, publishers and writers are people too and they like to hear nice things said about their work. As you note, they like to read such. This is one more noise barrier the critic must penetrate to have his or her criticism heard. Depending on the personality of the "pro" involved, they may be as exercised as the devoted fan upon being criticized but their reaction is not a counter attack - rather, they just fall silent and let the devoted fans take care of the critic. They ignore the criticism, polite or impolite, as abberational in the face of their devoted fans' adoration. Again - just depending on the personality.

Then there is the corporate factor that is more an issue with large entities like Wotc than with some "mom and pop" sized publishers. The writer may have had only limited control over how the product was written and presented. The writing assignment may have demanded Flumps as the arch-villains. The company may be determined to promote a particular type of presentation, for example the delve format. The writer has little to no control over this and at the same time cannot too (if at all) criticize these decisions or appear to accept criticism, at least if they wish to remain employed. The writer can then either defend the work or say nothing.

At the same time, the company if it is very large is to a degree insulated from acting on even valid critoicism because its publishing plans are made far in advance and often reflect goals that go beyond the four couners of any one product - for example promoting the use of minis because the company also sells minis, even if that goal may get in the way of best presenting a particular product.

Taken together, these above factors are a formidable barrier that the critic must overcome if they actually wish to effect change, as opposed to just venting. And here is where we get the "in for a penny, in for a pound" factor. Once the critic has decided that they need to present strongly, it is easy to escalate, even too easy.

IMO, there are really only three ways to effect change via the internet on a game publisher or writer and none of them include politely noting that a particular product could have been better.

With all due respect Mr. Mearls, and I'll see you on November 3rd as I believe you will be here for D&D day and I'll mention this if I remember this thread, your thought is well intentioned and a good one but fails to account for the "sea of noise" that is the internet and in which any would-be change affecting critc finds themselves afloat.

Would that your scenario would actually bear out. The internet would be a more civil place.

I am not endorsing the ranting critic but I am understanding why the alternative to the rant may not achieve any real hope of recognition and thus any possibility of change. Unfortunately on the internet, he or she who shouts loudest stands the best chance of being heard or "winning." Conversely, I do not discount your point that the critical rant may be self-defeating for the reasons you say. It is then an impasse - the immoveable force and the irresistible object (that ordering is intentional )