There's a difference between bad games and different games, I guess what we should do is give all games, especially some strange sequels, more thought rather than bashing them just because they're different. I did it for Super Paper Mario, and Zelda II

_{(wait, if zelda 2 didn't get so much backlash, would the entire series be completely different today?)}

Other entertainment industries have a more robust mid-tier/ indie scene that allows people to be more experimental and make mistakes without ruining their careers in the process.

It's not about opinions - peer review is an important part of the innovation process too. It's about the pervading attitude of the games industry specifically. Once you've reached a certain profile, and then made a mistake in this industry, there's a substantial minority of people - if not a majority, who will no longer take you seriously. That does beyond criticism. It's outright dismissal.

This is not a healthy atmosphere for encouraging innovation.

Wait, Tyson's back? Nice to see you again, man!

Quick question: is it right to complain if a game tries to appeal to the mass gaming populace by changing the way it is as a franchise? I was really ticked with how Mass Effect 3 turned out, and I feel a part of that was because Bioware was trying to get more people to play the game. The game focused so much on combat that it forgot what made it so special the first place with the characters and the way you interacted with them. Character development pretty much didn't exist, nor did any new characters outside of James Vega. Which is kind of odd, since character development was delivered in spades in and between the prior games, as well as new characters.

So is it wrong to complain there?

I suppose I could ask about Dead Space 3 as well. That game seems to be looking to abandon what made it so cool as a franchise by trying to appeal more to the "current gamer".

Nolan Bushnell, the father of trolling has a twitter?
The way I see it, the video games industry is going back to The Great Video Game Crash of 1983
Something will terribly wrong, and dozens of game manufacturers and console producers will go out of business, production of new games crawl to a standstill, and the American and Japanese console game market as a whole will be dead for the next two years.

And mark my words, it will happen!

This isn't really about whether it's right or wrong to complain about games. I've been critical of plenty of games, of course, and indeed I remember having a big debate with you about how as far as I'm concerned Tecmo Koei ruined Dead or Alive with the 5th game.

Criticisng games is peer review - it's the only way to give game makers feedback about whether they are doing things right.

That's a different debate. The point here is that, if we want a developer like Bioware to produce the games we want to play, we need to encourage them to be innovative by not getting all fanboyish when they try something that doesn't work for us.

That's a great oversimplification of the issue, of course, but I hope it helps clarify what I see as the difference between criticism and dismissal.

The great @LGM has spoken! And so it shall come to pass!

@WhiteKnight Thank you, it does clear it up.
Yeah, I'm really trying to figure out why EA is forcing Dead Space 3 to be made the way it is. All the people that bought the prior games and enjoyed them don't seem to be too keen on the changes being made. Since the same game mechanics are being used as a base, I can see why.people would be ticked.

And then there's games where some changes are made that divide fans. Dead or Alive 5 is a pretty good example. On one hand, you have people like me who want to get good at fighting games, and Dead or Alive 5 offers gameplay mechanics and the tools necessary to allow for expertise to happen. On the other side of things, you have people like you and my brother that weren't able to enjoy it as much as prior entries because the mechanics became just enough more complicated to not make it as enjoyable for you and her. Seriously, I have to pop in DOA 2 and 3 everytime because having two medium counters ensures that players in the know get an insane advantage. Granted, I personally like that, since I do like to play the game seriously, as do many others, but there's definitely others that think otherwise.

Still, I agree with your point in not belittling people's opinions because of mistakes. I also don't agree in some of the extreme measures in pointing out flaws (the Mass Effect 3 ending court case, anybody?)

While there is a lot of truth to this, I can't defend Peter Molyneux. I appreciate someone trying to be ambitious and doing something new but what are people supposed to do when he overhypes every game as the greatest gift man has ever seen. It is insane how he refuses to learn from his own mistakes. Well he admits he overhypes things...and then continues to overhype. And really, despite Fable 3 being a complete disaster in nearly every way, it was inexplicably given some really solid scores and sold a lot of copies.

I mean, that doesn't necessarily mean his opinion is worthless, but fans' reaction to him shouldn't be surprising and he kinda asked for it after so long. And honestly, for how much of a joke he supposedly is, I see a ton of people still supporting him and he has a kickstarter, so even if I did think people were way too harsh on him, he's probably going to be fine. I can't really hate on him too much I guess, I just wish he used his love of hyping stuff up to hype up something that could actually live up to something truly great. It's really dissappointing that people with a better track record for innovation can't grab people's attention is what I'm saying. There are plenty of creative people who won't get 1/10 the attention or chances to succeed Molyneux has and will continue to do.

I don't follow Mass Effect, but from what I can tell Bioware legitimately tried (and failed) to deliver a fitting conclusion to the fans of the series. Wrapping up such an epic trilogy in a satisfying way is no easy task (just ask Christopher Nolan), so I know I would feel pretty demoralized if I had fans suing me for trying and failing to give them the ending they want.

Actually, RE DoA 5, now that I'm pretty good at it and can complete the game on the higher difficulties, I'm comfortable enough with the mechanics that that side of things is enjoyable for me again. Not accessible, necessarily, but enjoyable.

My problem with DoA 5 is still the presentation. The game lost a great deal of its charm and "Japanese" humour when it went from plastic dollface half-naked girls beating one another up to human-looking polygons rubbing one another's faces in the dirt. The humour of the game and the crazy/ oversexed costumes might still be there, but they've lost a lot of context now that there's a more serious visual presentation and the whole thing just strikes me as a confused mess.

It saddens me, I still love Hitomi.

to be fair, the original ending was blatantly just lazy and rushed

That may well be, as I've never seen it. I wonder if EA had anything to do with the "rushed" part.

I do agree with this. Part of the philosophy of the creative process is that those creatives who do have the opportunity to innovate, and then fail, learn from their mistakes and Molyneux doesn't seem to do that.

I personally like the guy because he is almost militant in his dedication to experimentation, and, well, I feel something of a kindred spirit there. I'd love to sit down with the guy over beers some time and just figure out what's really going on in that clearly intelligent head of his.

Also, if anyone wants to know more about Peter Molyneux, I consider this essential reading: http://t.co/AOk2fpLM

They sure do. But for innovation to happen, people need to stop buying Samurai Warriors.

Failure has a huge stigma attached to it. People are inherently afraid of failure.
We do not want to fail. We do not want to be associated with failure. We do our best to avoid failure in all of its many forms.
Sadly, this holds true even if it is the result of a great idea or bold attempt at innovation.