[Editor's note: We're not just a (rad) news site -- we also publish opinions/editorials from our community & employees like this one, though be aware it may not jive with the opinions of Destructoid as a whole, or how our moms raised us. Want to post your own article in response? Publish it now on our community blogs.]
Everything comes at a price. It's just one of those concepts that seems to elude many people. Wander around gaming sites for long enough and you will start to hear a grating, high-pitched noise. Draw closer and it will be joined by another. Then another. Before long, the air will be filled with a twisted cacophany of self-entitlement and uninformed judgement. It is nothing less than an army of squeaky wheels.
What do they want? Well, that depends on when you ask that particular question. If you ask relatively early in the development process, the answer is almost exclusively "better graphics". Check out the comments to game previews on most sites, or spend some quality time with Jonathan Ross' excellent Fanboy Friday series and you will invariably see some permutations of the following:
"DO NOT WANT. This game looks like shit."
"Whatevs this looks leik a PStwo game lazy bastards."
"Lolz @ kiddie graphics art stylez -- this is Diablo 3 not f*&^^ing fraggle rok 3"
Now ask that question a second time once the game has been released and you'll get a very different answer. The same outspoken Internet armchair quarterbacks always return, but this time they're squeaking about something else.
What do they want now? Everything else, of course! Having clamored for better visuals and gotten them, it's now time to stare across the fence and engage in some serious green vs. greener comparisons. Find these same commenters after the reviews have been posted and listen to the change in tune:
"pretty game, too bad it handles like a tractor, LOL!" "you gave this a 9.0????!?!?! if it weren't forthe graphix this game would be a 5 at best, moneyhat much?" "I already have games that are only good for looking at. They're called movies." 
When you wish upon a paw. . . You simply cannot have it both ways Now, I could go on for another 20-30 paragraphs about how this kind of vitriolic two-faced behavior makes me feel. Double that length if I included my plans for what I fantasize doing to them with a used car battery, a sack of Susan B. Anthony dollar coins, a starving possum, the opportunity, and a lack of any social consequences for my actions.
Suffice to say for now, I feel that this type of conduct is self-evidently idiotic. While it might be emotionally fulfilling to switch on RAGE! mode and fire an incendiary salvo right into the heart of Squeaky HQ, that type of response doesn't produce any meaningful results other than stirring the hornets' nest.
Now, I'm not a game developer either, so I won't claim to be a subject matter expert. However, I have picked up a few life skills in the process of walking my path over the years. One of the most useful to me has been the application of logic and reason to my emotional responses prior to expressing myself. This ensures that when I make a request, it is realistic and shows due consideration for what the other party is being asked to accomplish.
We're all nerds here, right? Good. Then let me make my point with a familiar topic as an analogy.
Pictured : My industry credentials. Rudimentary physics as game development The law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in a closed system remains constant. How is this pertinent to our squeaky friends? Simple. The game development cycle is a variety of closed system where the resources are finite. The time-frame, people power, and budget are usually well-defined before the work ever begins.
Yes, there are plenty of times where a game is delayed or additional resources are added to the mix. However, even in those cases a developer will still avoid dedicating more resources to a project than they can reasonably expect to recoup in sales and revenues. So at some point there is still a hard-line limit to what a dev team can reasonably expect to accomplish with any given game.
A corollary of the law of conservation of energy is that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change form. So with a finite amount of resources, if you increase the level of resources devoted to any single facet of game development, then another area must necessarily lose resources.
This is true in the hardware -- once you've learned to push a console or PC to its limits, you have to begin compromising. Graphics has to share space in the queue with AI, animation, physics, sounds, etc. When you level up the graphics you also level down one of these other facets.
In the development cycle, the time and human resources placed into one area limits the amount you can place into another. Creating art assets, animating, level design, sound design, game engine creation, play testing, balancing, debugging and more all factor into the picture and compete for time and energy.
Disappointed theoretical physicist is disappointed. In conclusion When a mechanical system is inefficient, some potential energy is lost into the transfer to kinetic energy. This lost energy usually changes form into heat energy. When an intellectual system is inefficent, people getting steamed and overheated is also a natural byproduct. Cool down, squeaky wheels. Let's have a drink and rationally discuss our differences -- it IS said that alcohol is a social lubricant.
So, to the squeaky among you -- stop making absolute statements and then harshly judging the fruits of an allocation process that you had a hand in creating. It doesn't matter if your priorities or preferences are different from mine or anyone else's. But please, give me some context to understand your position from. Tell me which slider you'd pull back on to make room for your demands.
Contest:
6:00 PM on 10.17.2009
| 
@Solgrim -- You're absolutely right. Maturity can't be imposed, only encouraged. I hope at least it will help some to frame their opinions and arguments more clearly and realistically. Other than that, it made me feel good to let that out! :)
While it's largely agreed that trying to find (or inject) rhyme or reason in "squeaky wheel" arguments is a fool's errand, sadly attempting to apply some sort of provable formula to the development process is equally impossible, and as such the loopholes for endless complaints will never vanish altogether.
Or did I miss the point of this thing entirely?
Snarky statements aimed at making this assertion can probably only be evaluated true or false in terms of a developer's track record over time. (Ex. However Dragon Age turns out, I won't give much credibility to anyone that says that a particular element in the game was weak because Bioware was lazy or bad.)
I'm more concerned with how people end up being dissatisfied with even well-produced games despite the fact that their input helps guide the design philosophy in part.
I mostly wanted to point out the futility of robbing Peter to pay Paul, but I agree that those who are complaining due to fanboy tendencies will always find a justification to keep squeaking, whether steeped in logic or no. I'm aware that I'm probably tilting at windmills a bit.
Finally, I <3 constructive criticism. If I'm going to deride others for making an unsound case then mine had better be airtight, hadn't it? Thanks for reading and commenting!
/dissertation
Whining for the sake of whining isn't going to get anyone anything... but offering well rounded constructive criticism of a game is often helpful to devs. Though sometimes straight up whining does work... "the assault class is overpowered in KZ2!!" whimper, whimper, whine... and the devs nerfed the class.
I guess it comes down to "whining in large numbers sometimes works"! :)
I do agree thought that sometimes people's expectations are way above what is realistically possible.
Amen. That to me is a huge deal. I'm also a fan of constructive criticism (see above), and it's the supporting reasoning behind the argument or request that makes it more than just whining.
When people criticize the 360 or PS3 either directly or by proxy (by way of Sony/MS, or an Xbox/PS3 exclusive game) then it shakes their entire belief system that they've built up around this platform, so they react negatively.
So, in their minds, they're always struggling for something, and if they aren't struggling for it they don't feel any connection to it, so they will never be "happy" with anything.
I always search over my keyboard, anxiously looking for the 'explode head' key when I see some of the bile leveled towards some games.
In many cases a game will be in it's infancy and the developers will release some screens or maybe even a short video for those following the the title. Just scanning through the comments of these will generally reveal a few 'squeakers' complaining about something small and remote, loudly condemning the product forever.
It's a very sad situation. But posts like yours make things better ^^
I also believe in the infinite capasity to suck. That is, while there is a limited capasity for a game or any other form of media to be awesome, there is no limit to how much a piece of entertainment can be terrible. That is why I believe I have the right to criticize the graphics of a trailer (the only part of the trailer as it extends to the quality of the game I can measure objectively), then come back when the graphics are better, realize that the game is the exact opposite of addictive, and say it sucks and they should have put more resources into gameplay.
Actually, resource isn't even the problem in a financial sense. Many of these developers simply have no creative talent whatsoever, more prone to make movies with quick time events and minor dialogue deviations than a piece of entertainment that I will pick up and never want to put down. Addictive gameplay above all else, followed by content in a context I am interested in purchasing, and everything else later (which is why Pokemon is king).
"When an intellectual system is inefficent, people getting steamed and overheated is also a natural byproduct. " That's the one I have to work on. When someone says something obscenely stupid, I must not give in and dignify it with a response.
But the stupidest of the stupid believe themselves knowledgable while in truth they are ignorant. How can such a person hope to become more intelligent unless he is corrected in his error? Such a person has no hope on his own because such a person believes there is nothing more he needs to learn, as he is already intelligent in his own eyes.
Because these type of people feed on the attention people like yourself give them. They prey on people like you and me to fulfill their arrogant "All eyes on me" fetish. Logic does not work on them, but if you find a suitable method, please do share.
Actually, I am the type of person that feeds on the stupid. I enjoy being harshly frank, and because I can't necesarily get away with it in reality, I like being brutally honest over the internet, so it's not terribly important to me whether I am feeding them or not.
Unfortunately, the only type of troll I have successfully dealt with is one smart troll. There was one condescending person that made a point of nitpicking everyone's arguements into oblivion with a post count that actually did become over 9000; the guy reeked of respect, and was the best person I have ever seen when it comes to winning arguements. His weakness was his hatred of fact; I ended up shearing away all his respect by asking him to provide evidence of a fact that he stated, knowing full well that the fact was true. When he dodged responding with proof by asking me to prove the opposite with more than minor anecdotal evidence, I managed to trap him by stating my reason: although I knew he was right I didn't know if he knew he was right, and due to him not having even a minimal level of anecdotal evidence he proved his ignorance. This completely destroyed his respected status, which ultimately defeated his trolling.
Although for regular trolls I find the majority have little will to live; without any community respect the majority die off within a few weeks or smarten up. Or are ignored.
@Hcapt -- there's no denying that some games/developers just plain suck -- that's definitely a variable (see discussion w/BulletMagnet above), but I'm more so referring to games from proven developers packed with talent that end up making a choice for the direction of a game partially based on the voices of that vocal minority who don't understand that you simply can't do everything in a 2 year development cycle. Heck, GTAIV (while a very fun game, IMO), had a much longer dev cycle and still couldn't get all the elements in. Rockstar may have its faults, but lack of talent certainly isn't one of them.
Thanks for adding to the discussion!
GTA IV wasn't as popular as San Andreas because Rockstar misplaced talent making an expansive internet and T.V. programs instead of making an expanisve world the size of a state that was attractive and glitzy.
See, GTA IV is smaller than San Andreas, and takes place in Liberty City, a place I have already seen. Now why would I want to go back to that place and check out the fake internet when I could explore a gigantic mountain, and jump off the top of it at sixty miles per hour to see how many times my hummer rolls? Natually I'm going to pick jump off a mountain over browse the internet. Especially if the mountain is one I've never been to, and the internet is in a cafe I've already seen. Also adjoining that mountain is the Las Vegas strip, San Fransisco, and Los Angeles. I am going to pick the larger world every time, and I hope that Rockstar doesn't make the mistake of shrinking the game world and returning to already too familiar locals again (they can get rid of internet, television, and cell phones completely; I won't miss them at all as long as I get my expansive overworld).
Great gameplay, great content, and great graphics shouldn't be mutually exclusive. In fact, Nintendo tries to combine the three in every triple A title they make.
I think that the biggest problem though is a lack of understanding on how to make great gameplay, followed by a lack of understanding of how to make great content. Graphics is the one thing that has been perfected recently, but the other two have nearly been lost in the process due to the need for "safeness" (content related) and the desire to become cinematic (gameplay related).
On a side note, I go for the larger gameworld almost every time as well. Next year's Red Dead Redemption is purported to be larger than San Andreas in terms of game world size! I'll be curious to see what elements are toned down in order to make room for that aspect of development.
"This completely destroyed his respected status, which ultimately defeated his trolling. "
I'd wager to bet that this person that you speak of and yourself were the only two people in the world paying any attention.