negativity
Latest
League of Legends introduces Ranked Restrictions for toxic players
League of Legends is a really popular game, but it also has a pretty noxious community reputation. That's something that's on the forefront of the mind of the Riot Games team, and it's being addressed with the latest patch. Players voted down for negative behavior are already operating under a chat restriction, requiring them to play a certain number of games before they can speak in the game again. Now those players will see another restriction, though: the inability to access ranked play. Rank restricted players will have a certain number of games that they must play before they can return to queueing for ranked matches just like with chat restrictions. Players who are deeply into negative territory and rank restricted at the end of a given competitive season will also be ineligible for receiving special rewards for ranked play, meaning that poor sportsmanship doesn't pay at any level of the game. While there are potential abuses for the system, it's an obvious effort to make the play experience on all levels a more positive one for players.
BioWare co-founder talks EA's influence, beer, and gamer negativity
BioWare co-founder Dr. Greg Zeschuk may have traded in RPGs for craft beer, but the ex-developer still has plenty to say about his former profession. In a phone interview with GamesIndustry.biz, Zeschuk explains why he's open to games consulting and how he doesn't game as much as he used to. Zeschuk also rejects any notion of Electronic Arts being a negative influence on BioWare. "They don't second-guess you, they don't say you shouldn't do that," he explains. "We had complete creative control over a lot of it; some fans didn't like some of it and some of it was experimental, quite frankly." Finally, Zeschuk has some interesting insights into gamer culture and the negativity that surrounded BioWare's recent projects. "At the end of the day, for every one person complaining there are a whole bunch of other people who actually like it," Zeschuk says. And while he admits to enjoying the fact that beer lovers aren't prone to arguments and invective like gamers, there's something to be said for that level of engagement. "I think the problem with gamers is you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. But what it talks to is the power of games as art and the power of games as a medium where people get really, really passionate," Zeschuk explains.
Ex-BioWare dev: Negativity too much for Zeschuk, Muzyka
Former BioWare dev Trent Oster thinks that fan negativity probably contributed to the recent exit strategy for BioWare founders Greg Zeschuk and Ray Muzyka. "The last time I met up with [Greg], I felt his exhaustion," Oster told Now Gamer. 'Punch out, eject, get the hell out,' was my suggestion to him and it hit closer to the mark than I had realized. I also think the Mass Effect 3 fan reaction and the Old Republic fans' negativity was just too much." Oster goes on to express surprise at Muzyka's departure, saying that he had him "pegged as an EA lifer." "I'm sure the internal culture at EA had pinned the Old Republic conversion to free-to-play as a failure and hung that completely on Ray, so that would have hurt his upward climb. But, I figured he would fight harder. EA upper management must have been even worse than I thought," Oster explained.
The Soapbox: 'L2P' and the antisocial MMO
Disclaimer: The Soapbox column is entirely the opinion of this week's writer and does not necessarily reflect the views of Massively as a whole. If you're afraid of opinions other than your own, you might want to skip this column. I'm amazed how often I still hear the phrase "learn to play." It's become a nasty term that makes me suspect those saying it just don't want other gamers around at all. And I can hardly blame them when the MMO market is pushing a markedly single-player agenda. MMOs tout our ability to play with friends and interact with others, but in the end, they are selfish games that breed and attract selfish gamers. In modern MMOs, interaction barely rises above single-player co-op. Guild Wars 2 exemplifies this by dropping you in a world with the potential for thousands of players to be all around you, but its alienating mechanics often make you feel like a lonely ghost who wants nothing more than to hug someone. L2P and other stock insults are rooted in something ugly: the literally antisocial nature of many MMOs.
The Daily Grind: When do you consider a game to be 'dying'?
If you listen to internet negativity, every game is dying. World of Warcraft is dying, some folks say, because it's lost a fraction of its population after seven years. RIFT is "obviously" pushing out tons of content only because it's desperate and dying. Two million players and queues in Star Wars: The Old Republic also mean the game is dying. A game goes free-to-play? Dying. Keeps a subscription? Dying. Box on sale? Dying. Moves to Steam? Dying. Merges servers? Dying. Doesn't merge servers? Dying! It's true that some games have gone under, but many more are hanging in there after a decade, even if they aren't blockbusters that impress people used to seeing populations in the millions. If World of Warcraft dwindled to as few players as, say, Asheron's Call, I still wouldn't call that dying. It might be small, but it's still alive and still getting updates, and that's more than I can say for some games. What about you -- when, exactly, in a game's timeline do you consider that game to be dying? Every morning, the Massively bloggers probe the minds of their readers with deep, thought-provoking questions about that most serious of topics: massively online gaming. We crave your opinions, so grab your caffeinated beverage of choice and chime in on today's Daily Grind!
The Soapbox: On MMO negativity
Disclaimer: The Soapbox column is entirely the opinion of this week's writer and does not necessarily reflect the views of Massively as a whole. If you're afraid of opinions other than your own, you might want to skip this column. Last week I was given a link to an op-ed piece at Thade's place, and in lieu of posting a comment there, I figured I'd do it on the Soapbox and hopefully generate some discussion (and traffic) for all concerned. In a nutshell, Thade questions whether MMO pundits actually like MMOs, and he comments on a perceived rise in negativity amongst what are assumed to be fans of the genre. I don't know if the blogosphere has taken a turn toward the negative, but if so, there's a pretty simple explanation for it. The games have changed, and the old guard who grew up with MMOs (and are willing/able to devote time to blogging about them) have to try a little bit harder to enjoy themselves as each new title gets further and further from what they like. That's OK, though, and it's also OK -- and even essential -- for the disaffected to speak up.
The Daily Grind: What makes you optimistic?
Being negative about the industry these days seems to be the norm, and it's kind of understandable. APB managed to set a record for being the fastest MMO death ever, Final Fantasy XIV launched to massively mixed opinions, and not everyone is really on board for the coming Cataclysm. It's very easy to look to next year and assume that more promises will be broken, that coming titles won't live up to the hype, and that everything is doom and gloom for the forseeable future. Despite all of that, however, there are reasons to be just a bit more optimistic. There has to be something that inspires you to at least adjust your opinion ever-so-slightly upward, that maybe things won't turn out as bad as your nervousness might indicate. Whether it's an upcoming title, patches or expansions that are handled well, or even just a humble move by developers, what makes you hopeful for the future of MMOs? Every morning, the Massively bloggers probe the minds of our readers with deep, thought-provoking questions about that most serious of topics: massively online gaming. We crave your opinions, so grab your caffeinated beverage of choice and chime in on today's The Daily Grind!
The Mog Log: The negativity song
As you read this, I am in New York at the New York Comic Con, where I am very angry. It's not because I dislike the city or because I'm going to be spending all day running around trying to put together interviews and information, although those are both true statements. It's because all of this means I'm going to have to skip out on an entire day of Final Fantasy XIV. This should give you some idea of how much I like this game -- that I'm more annoyed about not playing it than about spending fifteen hours working. But this is not to say that all is well and good within the land of Eorzea. Things are pretty darn good, yeah, but to the surprise of absolutely no one there are some things I really don't like about Final Fantasy XIV. They aren't game-breaking, and some would argue that they're not even really drawbacks, but if I had to pick a list of what to dislike about the game? Here's the list. (And while I'm still not pleased with the column, I'd like to look back on this particular installment and note that I freaking called it. Except for the communication -- the development team has stepped up on that count.)
Star Trek Online Advisory Council formed, wailing and gnashing of teeth ensues
Fan input can be a touchy thing. You get it whether you ask for it or not, especially if you have official forums, and it's usually fairly divided. The fanbase frequently can't agree on what they want as an aggregate, so it's understandable that companies might want to filter some of the input through other sources. It's understandable that Cryptic would want to create the Star Trek Online Advisory Council, consisting of vocal fans that they can use as a barometer of current opinion and compressing the most urgent issues. Especially given the philosophy of player-driven development, it all makes sense. The problems come when they announce this to other players. First response in the official thread is an incredulous statement that one group of fans is getting more input in the game's direction than anyone else for what they consider no logical reason. At 51 pages as of this writing and still going, the thread's response is overwhelmingly negative, ranging from anger to baffled confusion at the program. How Star Trek Online's producers will react is unsure, but it's certain that the announcement hasn't gone over well... a true shame after riding high from the first large content patch.
Wii Warm Up: Negativity
We've noticed something lately, and thought it worth mentioning this fine morning: there are lots of people talking about the "failure" of the Wii. We've seen dozens of op-ed pieces on the various things that have "killed" the Wii (lack of supply, lack of games, lack of third party support), and we see lots of rousing posts on various interweb forums about how Nintendo can "turn things around." Frankly, these kinds of pieces make us rub our eyes and make comic faces that demonstrate our disbelief. Is this bizarro world? Because in this world, we see a lot of people playing Wii. We see a lot of people buying Wii. We're watching Nintendo ooze money right now. So, uh, just what is it we're missing here?
