A recent trend has been to assuage the masses that they do not deserve to criticize any part of their childhood video game remakes. That they should be honored that company X has decided to invest in remastering a product (perhaps more than once?) and make billions. This principle has been welcomed by executives, and those standing to benefit from any sort of trickle down of profit/notoriety gained through defending a game product.
Most recently, another beloved childhood game of mine -- Diablo II LOD was remastered into Diablo 2 Resurrected. The graphics are stunning. The remastered cinematics fantastic. However, there has been many problems. Ladder season is nowhere in sight. Basic functionality is missing. Login servers -- have been down roughly half of the several weeks since release (in typical Blizzard Fashion -- D3 anyone?).
Yet, even now -- in another forum community far away -- https://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=87153539&f=148&o=10 -- individuals are pleading with others:
This of course is not true -- one did certainly pay for a working product, and the product does not work.
This is similar to what I have read on this forum, time and time again. But is this the correct approach? Why one must always feel the need to be "positive," and without critique -- even when it is sorely due?
Some naïve individuals may claim to share the sentiment -- but one merely need to change the situation for comparison's sake. If you receive a sandwich and it is full of mold, do you not perhaps inquire as to why you paid for a bad product? Does one say "Well, I take the good with the bad," and gulp down the Rhizopus? Does one decide to throw out a quarter of the sandwich, perhaps parts of spoiled vegetables or meat -- and be thankful that they could eat today?
Of course not. In gaming, negative feedback is perhaps the only way of being heard anymore. Without it, the scale of hiring a team to pursue a more thorough debug/ticket list is not tipped. Those arguing that one should be thankful for any level of support, when it is fairly obvious that the one budgeted is inadequate -- is not in one's own best interest.
If an executive can squelch negative sentiment, downplay negative feedback -- they no longer have to justify why they underpaid their QA staffing size or pushed their schedule so far right that the delivery looked like a half-baked beta.
There is value in feedback, positive and negative. By eliminating negative feedback one only discourages potential meaningful change and make it easier for corporations to justify understaffing/underdevelopment prior to release. The push of "toxic positivity," where nothing can be honestly critiqued ( unless under the contrived veil of "I'm sure they're doing their best BUT!"), disregards normal human feelings regarding being disappointed with reasonable expectations. This doesn't mean you have to call the producer an ass-clown - but it does mean you should not discourage others from expressing abject frustration for a product they purchased that was delivered faulty.
Most recently, another beloved childhood game of mine -- Diablo II LOD was remastered into Diablo 2 Resurrected. The graphics are stunning. The remastered cinematics fantastic. However, there has been many problems. Ladder season is nowhere in sight. Basic functionality is missing. Login servers -- have been down roughly half of the several weeks since release (in typical Blizzard Fashion -- D3 anyone?).
Yet, even now -- in another forum community far away -- https://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=87153539&f=148&o=10 -- individuals are pleading with others:
Publius said:"I think many of you don't know how difficult it is to get an online application to work for millions of people.
I work in IT and all I can say is it is difficult. Insulting does not support.
We should be happy to have this game (we all obviously love the new D2) and we should be thankful that people are trying to make it work for us.
We did not pay for a 100% functioning game. We paid for people who work their asses off to make it keep working for many more hours to come.
love, spread it
This of course is not true -- one did certainly pay for a working product, and the product does not work.
This is similar to what I have read on this forum, time and time again. But is this the correct approach? Why one must always feel the need to be "positive," and without critique -- even when it is sorely due?
Some naïve individuals may claim to share the sentiment -- but one merely need to change the situation for comparison's sake. If you receive a sandwich and it is full of mold, do you not perhaps inquire as to why you paid for a bad product? Does one say "Well, I take the good with the bad," and gulp down the Rhizopus? Does one decide to throw out a quarter of the sandwich, perhaps parts of spoiled vegetables or meat -- and be thankful that they could eat today?
Of course not. In gaming, negative feedback is perhaps the only way of being heard anymore. Without it, the scale of hiring a team to pursue a more thorough debug/ticket list is not tipped. Those arguing that one should be thankful for any level of support, when it is fairly obvious that the one budgeted is inadequate -- is not in one's own best interest.
If an executive can squelch negative sentiment, downplay negative feedback -- they no longer have to justify why they underpaid their QA staffing size or pushed their schedule so far right that the delivery looked like a half-baked beta.
There is value in feedback, positive and negative. By eliminating negative feedback one only discourages potential meaningful change and make it easier for corporations to justify understaffing/underdevelopment prior to release. The push of "toxic positivity," where nothing can be honestly critiqued ( unless under the contrived veil of "I'm sure they're doing their best BUT!"), disregards normal human feelings regarding being disappointed with reasonable expectations. This doesn't mean you have to call the producer an ass-clown - but it does mean you should not discourage others from expressing abject frustration for a product they purchased that was delivered faulty.
Last edited: