Why are commenters so hostile towards the gaming skills of the players they watch online?

I noticed this most in Metal Gear Scanlon, and it’s popped up again during the Brad and Dan Hitman play through, but really it exists on seemingly every Giant Bomb video as well as most Youtube LPs I’VE ever seen. Why do people on the internet get so unbelievably angry when people play games the wrong way?

I completely understand giving tips for the game, but this goes further than that. People are offended that those on camera dare do things such as miss items or not pick up on every plot point immediately.

The thing is, isn’t that kind of the point of a blind play through? If you’re looking for incredible finesse and skill at a game, go watch a speed run of a game. But if you’re interested in seeing a personality you like discover a game for the first time, why is it so important that he play a certain way?

The most baffling part of all this is that I don’t even think the players are ever that bad. First, I understand how hard it is to talk and play at the same time. Second, I can’t count the number of time the top comment is something like, “How did you morons miss the red gem by the save marker?!?” A. I didn’t see the gem either. B. Why does it matter if he got the gem or not? How does that affect you, the video, or his experience with the game at all?

I guess I’m just confused and frustrated as a fan of this site. I read these posts over and over and they’re mean-spirited and never ending. Poor Drew suffered through five straight games of people telling him how much he sucked at Metal Gear, a series in which his lack of knowledge was the very point of the content.

So if you are someone who posts these comments (and I know there are plenty of you out there) please explain your answers to the following questions:

1) What is your intended goal by telling whoever is in the video that they made a mistake? Are you just venting frustration, or do you actually think you can make a positive change?

2) Why do said mistakes make you so upset in the first place?

3) Why don’t you go a watch speed runs or other profession videos of games if high-level play is so important to you?

4) Are you not prone to the types of mistakes that are so commonly pointed out (missing items, forgetting dialogue, repeating steps) in your first play through of games?

---

I encourage everyone to post their thoughts and opinions about all this. I am frustrated by all this, but more than that I’m just baffled by how often I see things like this. It all happens much too often for me to blow it off as “the internet is just like that”. Thanks for reading.

I can kind of understand the frustration that leads to the comments. It can be super frustrating when you know exactly what to do and the player keeps missing obvious stuff, especially if that obvious thing is something that would make the experience better for everyone.

Buuut, I also (usually) have the basic decency to not vent those frustrations in the comments. There's never an excuse to be a dick.

When you go to a concert to see someone perform and they do it poorly, people will get upset.

Same principle. I'm just helping you understand it though, not defending it. They're playing a freaking video game, viewers need to calm down.

I admit though when a player is playing something poorly and visibly or audibly getting frustrated as if it's the game's fault, that bothers me. In other words, I can sometimes lose my cool when the let's player is losing their cool....or if they're just being incredibly stupid. I love Drew but there was this part in Snake Eater where he was just stubbornly shooting all his ammo and throwing grenades in a situation where that method was clearly failing, and he was getting frustrated with the game. Not something to get angry about but I see why people can get bothered.

Everyone gets shit when they do perceived bad job, its human nature.

But their job to me is just to be entertaining. Is that the difference?

My issues in this regard are limited to Quick Looks, as they are supposed to be giving the viewer informed buying advice on top of the entertainment aspect that it and other Giant Bomb content offers.

I have no issue with Drew's playthroughs of the MGS games in Metal Gear Scanlon.

I think they're very good at playing, talking, and being entertaining at the same time, but yeah, it is kind of a large part of their job, right? They should be good at it. People wouldn't be watching quick looks if they were terrible at talking and playing.

I do understand that. I think I also just have a much higher tolerance for watching them struggle to succeed. I supposed I I get more frustrated when the game being played is one I'm fond of, but in those cases I still realize that even though I've beaten the game before, that doesn't mean they do.

Someone who can't make that simple observation may be beyond saving.

Because we're all perfect human beings that can do no wrong.... Yeah.

One reason might be because room for error is so small these days.

It's not because of poor skill, it's because of the excuse they make afterwards. I sometimes get frustrated when watching Hitman for example, because Brad is trying to rush to keep the video going? I'm not even sure what that means, but it's not a good thing sometimes. It's totally okay if he takes a bit more time here and there to learn how the game's mechanics and features work that he is missing. At some point it just becomes annoying if they still don't know when they are trespassing. It feels like they are not paying attention to the game. As someone else mentions a concert comparison; it's like going to a concert and having them rush through songs missing notes because they are worried about time or something.

Also, the 'playing a videogame and talking just makes you mess up' is not an argument that can be easily accepted in today's world. Because while it may be true, we can see people doing Let's Plays and live streaming while talking way more, and still playing with razor sharp skill.

That's not to say I don't think the video's are fun. I do like the Hitman series. I just get a little frustrated at some points. I don't feel like this is invalid criticism too, they absolutely can sit down and play for 10-15 minutes before recording to replay the tutorial or some stuff like that, if they haven't played in a while. It makes much more sense to me to reacquire gameplay knowledge beforehand than rushing through while playing.

I honestly think that people defending it like there is absolutely nothing to improve upon are a little bit blinded by love for the crew.

I noticed this a when Portal 2 came out and I'd watch Youtuber personalities play it. People would talk about how dumb the person is for not getting it immediately, and I'm just getting so frustrated with them. Of course it's obvious to you! YOU'VE BEATEN IT ALREADY! Of course the solution is RIGHT THERE when you watch someone play it, you're watching from a different perspective. God, it's so upsetting.

The only thing that bothers me is when one of the following happens:

A game is negatively criticized because of something the staff didn't understand or didn't pay attention to.

A game is inaccurately criticized as not having a feature or option that it actually does have.

The tutorial is completely ignored, leading to one of the first situations.

But forget about commentators, as they're not the ones who really suffer for these situations. If I was a developer, and the above happened in a quick look that made my game look bad, I would be livid.

I don't watch Giant Bomb video content anywhere near as much as I used to, so perhaps the staff ended up getting better about this. I would hope so, as it's probably a contributing factor of why I mostly don't bother anymore.

That's also a good point.

It's like in sports. "That guy's a bum! I could have caught that! What a joke!" No, no in reality you're fat ass couldn't even run the 10 yards in time.

@zevvion: i think all the blame heaped on brad is disingenuous, as he doesn't really blame the game that often if at all. Plus i feel he would still get a ton if internet hate one way or another.

I also find it a bit funny that you suggest brad take his time, as that seems to be one of the top things that pisses off his viewers (i agree with you that he should feel fine doing it and it's totally not a problem for me).

I expect decent competency i suppose, which all the guys on the staff have plenty of (yes, even brad). To expect razor sharp mlg gameplay from them is pretty ludicrous. I'm here to see them show off the game in a decent manner and provide their wit and personality. I suppose i can't really sway those who think they should work on their gaming skillz and it would help improve things, though, but at least that's a semi reasonable request.

I think with Metal Gear Scanlon there were a lot of people watching who adore the game / series and assumed that Dan was this Metal gear guru that played the game multiple times and knows all the ins and outs of the game and story. Paired with the guy that enjoys to tackle games that are about execution (flightsims, military games), surely this stealth series will be played with the intention to meticulously tackle the obstacles.

But soon enough they saw that Drew was afraid to develop his own playstyle, and neglects the story because the episodes need to be pushed forwards , while Dan was more in it for the cool action hero moments and movie reverences than for the stealth. I still enjoyed it, but i can see how that's a tough pill to swallow for a lot of people who feel like Drew played that series and only saw the tip of the iceberg that the series has been for other people.

Commenters can be pissed about all sorts of things. When it comes to game videos, 90% of the time it's about this.

Also, the whole "internet gonna internet" excuse is lazy and dangerous. If there's one thing we've all learned it's that internet hate groups don't go away if you ignore them. They just get louder and louder, even if they're targting people who aren't you. By not calling them on their shit, they have no reason to stop.

I think it all depends on the purpose of the content. In a Quick Look style scenario I think it's fair to expect the crew to have a grasp on the mechanics as it often influences the purchasing decisions of those watching. As for something like Hitman or Metal Gear Scanlon as you say the whole point of the content is to be entertaining. If viewers go in expecting to watch a flawless run they are in the wrong place. This website would be an awfully boring place if it was nothing but 20 minute perfect execution of games.

Generally I tend to avoid video content of games I am highly familiar with mostly because I get my entertainment out of those games by playing them myself. I enjoy watching video content for games I find interesting but lack the time or patience to ever truly get to a high degree of skill with.

The thing is sometimes it's deserved and sometimes it isn't but the typical internet hyperbole makes ALL criticism automatically get lumped up in the obnoxious pile which creates our current binary state of people either loving or hating something. There is little room for nuance online.

I easily get irritated when someone plays bad and sloppy and continues to blame the game and the viewers for it. Especially when its people who have done it their entire life and never improves and what it feels like doesnt even try.

Lets salute streamers like Vinny, Northenlion, Pewdiepie etc. that manages to suck at playing without blaming the game and still having a great dialogue with the viewers. Oftentimes theres comments on this site like "Well Vinny sucks at games but all loves him and that makes no sense", maybe its not all about sucking or not but more about how you handle your shortcommings and the critic you get. If you are a public personality you have to deal will all sides of the public and as with everything else not everyone are equally good at it. I think thats the bigger problem, exxagerated comments is just how this manifests combined with "internet hyperbole" as someone said.

Like what SpaceInsomniac said, I only get frustrated when the people playing the game fault the game for something when it's painfully clear that the people playing are unaware of or misunderstood a gameplay mechanic, and that ignorance usually stems from not taking the time to go through a tutorial or read instructions or other very plain ways a game teaches its concepts to player.

I only ever got frustrated enough to actually comment about that specific point with Metal Gear Scanlon V.

Dan was not giving the most helpful advice, and Drew was just getting more and more frustrated with the game because of his stubborn refusal to engage with the absolute myriad of options that would have made his experience easier, if not more enjoyable. It was pretty obvious not far into the playthrough though that it really wasn't Drew's kind of game, and I didn't fault him for not getting into it.

Never piped up or got too frustrated with him when he played through 1 to 4 or for any of the other playthroughs on the site.

I also like to think I never used abusive language the couple of times I commented!

I think that it can be a number a things but mainly it is general frustration when you know/understand what is meant to be happening but the person playing isn't getting it PLUS the fact that this is the internet and as well know anonymity makes people act like dicks.

I can easily get frustrated watching Brad and Dan play Hitman because A) They are playing in a way I never would so they regularly skip things that I would have explored further and B) They are not just playing the game but talking to each other and trying to be entertaining and keeping an eye on the time etc. This means that they miss stuff that I am sure Brad would see if he was just playing the game by himself on the couch. The only time this really frustrates me a ton is when they talk all the way through the very detailed intro, get into the game and one of them asks "wait, so what are we meant to be doing? Where are we? Why is he in there? etc.

However, no matter how annoying someone is, I would never bag them out in the comments. If they annoy me that much I'll just keep my mouth shut and stop watching the videos.

That's not what I said though. I don't demand they play with razor sharp skill, I'm just saying them making excuses is what people find the most frustrating. 'Playing a game while talking and explaining just makes you lose focus and not be as great at the game', that's the excuse they always use. It was acceptable back when only a few people watched Let's Plays, but now that all of us practically do and/or watch streams, we know it's simply not true. It might be true for them, but it's not true in general which is how it is being stated. If they just said, hey, I suck at playing this game if I also have to talk; then it would be a different story.

This is Giant Bomb. It's funny video's from personalities. It's not about high skill, I realize that and that's not what I'm arguing for. This is also not at all only directed at Brad. I too think that the 'Brad is bad at games' thing is kinda dumb, since Vinny for example is also showcasing he's not the greatest of all time. It's just that Vinny is not making any excuses whatsoever while he plays. And watching him it makes it pretty clear what he is getting out of playing the game, and he plays in a way to realize that. In contrast, Brad is constantly worried if he is playing the game as he should/as he wants/as he wishes he did/as he thinks the viewers want him to/fast enough/skillful enough/thoughtful enough/funny enough etc.

They are fun video's to watch, but they can be frustrating when those things pop in. If Brad were to play Hitman like: fuck, whatever. I don't intend to beat this level or anything, I just want to see what dumb shit will happen: then fine. But he's not doing that, and meanwhile he keeps being surprised/not understanding when he is trespassing for example.

@mrfizzy That's what comments are for though. You don't have to be a dick when you say it, but I think the crew would much rather have honest criticism they can work with than everyone just stop watching their video's and not saying a word why. That helps them way more and I honestly think that not saying anything makes you more unfriendly. This is their job and they work based on memberships and views and whatnot. Imagine if your boss at work suddenly fired you without ever warning you. That's shit. I've said numerous times I don't think the premium content is good for the most part before I unsubscribed. That way they could've done something about it if they wanted to.

It is so easy to be mean and be a backseat gamer when you are hidden behind a nickname online - it isn't only comments for gaming streams, but in all places where you can comment we see this happen.

I think its the same feeling like when you teach your parents to use the computer lol. I think its a natural frustration when you know how to do something a certain way and expect others to as well. But of course people online take it way to serious like they do everything.

I admit i couldnt watch all of mgsc4 probably because i was hot off the game and played it stealth. I didnt clog up the forums with too many you're doing it wrong posts though lol.

Its not mistakes that are annoying its how the player reacts to them, blaming the game unfairly is the only real irritation I have. If its your job you don't have to go in blind or unprepared and show the game poorly, if they just aren't that great at it then all I want them to do is relax and have fun with it. Vinny is good to watch because he doesn't really care how bad he does, he just screws around with the mechanics, if he fails he doesn't get anxious and give up immediately he just tries again within reason like a normal person does. When people worry about playing well or get frustrated at the game instead having fun they tend to skip over the cool parts.

I also often feel bad for the developers of the game.

@spacefish: But isn't it better to get a pure reaction about a game? Seems like going in prepared for flaws would diminish that a lot, quick looks are mostly "Hey lets check this game out that seems interesting" more than "Hey lets look at this game i've been playing a whole buch". Not saying it's not a combo of both, but i find raw reactions to be better. Like Alex's early look at Mirrors edge, i think seeing a new players reaction to the game is giving a better look at it than someone who put 100hrs in and mastered all the moves because it is more evocative of what the common experience would be. Plus you can probably get that experience all over youtube of super fans who try to master games before they show em off.

As viewers we are able to absorb and observe far more information than the people playing the game. And like children, we can get very agitated when we are both privvy to additional information, and unable to communicate this information to the people that hold the center of attention. Much like the passenger of a car can look through the side windows, and process either additional or different information about the ride than the driver can. But the driver is still controlling throttle, brakes, gear stick, etc.

Some are better at multitasking than others, or have ways to cover our lacking ability--some use silly antics to get a pass from the audience.

Don't like the ride? Get out of the car. No, really, it's that simple.

@oursin_360: I think that's less of a philosophical difference and more laziness. In fact, it seems way less common for QLs to be blind these days. Consider that you're watching a QL. One of two things can happen.

1) Reviewer is frustrated by a mechanic he does not understand. You end up believing that the game is frustrating and poorly explained and are less likely to want it

2) Reviewer has played the game enough to explain its mechanics. He tells you how it works, so if you buy the game, you will not be frustrated because you already understand.

Which is preferable to you? Also, you're creating a false dichotomy. Few of the GB staff put 100 hours into anything. The real difference is whether they've put in 5 hours of 0.

That's cool for a game in which a pure reaction is funny or entertaining, ie terrible/ comedy games. If its a game i'm interested in i'd rather the person driving the QL know what they are doing, the reactions are what the other person is for. Its also not an either or of speed runner vs going in blind, i'm only asking that they have enough familiarity to offset the difficulty of multitasking and perhaps show why the game is interesting within 30 mins or so.

The mirrors edge example is a strange one because even though Alex had played it for a couple hours before hand it seems a lot people who had never played it before had a better understanding of the mechanics just through playing the first game. I'm not sure what constitutes a "common" experience for this game but id imagine quite a few people had already played and remembered the first. The game looked terrible in the QL partly because Alex was unable to get any flow going, which is kinda the point of the game. In this case the QL was just confusing, I have no real idea if the game has no sense of flow because its open world or if its because Alex hadn't played enough to show it, or maybe he was nervous about playing well, I have no idea (it also doesn't take 100hrs, mirrors edge 1 was 5-6 hours long). In general though, I'm fine with Alex because he rarely blames the game.

This, and I can promise you as someone who played Mirror's Edge 50+ times and MirEdge 2 a couple hours, that the game does have what you want: flow, multiple pathways, very precise control etc. The Quick Look just doesn't inform what someone needs to know and showcases the game in a bad light. Remember that thread a few weeks back about someone playing Doom awfully? Imagine if that dude came out and said: yeah, the game is kinda frustrating.

That's exactly what the Mirror's Edge Catalyst Quick Look is. But go look at the comments. People think because of that Quick Look that the game actually looks poor and without flow, precise control etc. Which is totally has.

I prefer the first as the game should explain the mechanics not the reviewer/person making video, and quick looks aren't reviews but rather quick looks of the game(well they used to be quick looks now they are hour long looks) so a review is a different thing to me. Quick looks are just entertaining videos of a game rather than reviews of games, often times you get a good impression of whether the game is good or not but not always. There are sites out there that specialize in specific games and genres that will explain all the mechanics and give tool tips/wiki's etc, but that's not what quick looks do. For example as a fan of 2k basketball i honestly enjoyed Jeff and Vinny's quick looks of them rather than say Alex's as watching them fumble around was way more entertaining than watching someone semi competent. Now if I want to see high level play i'll watch some youtubers who probably play in tourneys for money etc

Anyway, i think if you want reviews, tool tips or videos to back up your like/dislike for a game then there are plenty of things that do that, as quick looks are not and have never been that.

I can get slightly frustrated watching someone play something, but I don't comment on it and I get over it super quickly. It is usually fine anyway, since it leads to funny situations.

One of the recent things that got frustrating is the fact that both Brad and Dan seem to not know how the minimap in Hitman works. Something is really weird about hearing someone say "I think he is alone in that room, we can go in and get him!" while the mini-map clearly shows there are three people there, one who will suspect you if he sees you. This is such a fundamental game mechanic that it surprises me how they keep overlooking it. It's even weirder when Brad doesn't seem to notice anything on the map, as I am pretty sure you need to keep an eye on the minimap in games like Dota, so this should be second nature? I don't know. The series is hilarious anyway, and I am not going to get hostile over such a small thing.

It stems from the impulse to constantly offer advise when watching someone play solitaire, only since the video is prerecorded the audience has to bottle up their "helpfulness" and let it explode in the comments.

That comparison works only if the concert is at your house and you didn't have to pay anything.

@zevvion: Thanks for clearing that up, good to hear it has most of what i'm looking for.

Are they? When did they say that?

No, just becouse lets say Giantbomb gets their income from ads instead of conventional direct payments doesnt mean the customer arent entitled to raise a voice. Its just a different businessmodel.

Likewise the premium members dont get a bigger right to rage in the comments than the free members.

Yeah, I don't think any of the crew has ever said that Quick Looks were meant as informed purchasing advice. I mean they don't even bring up pricing half the time.

I feel like people misconstrue the title 'Quick Look' people see that and I think they assume it means the guys are quickly looking at a game for the viewers benefit, a 'try before you buy' scenario, when, unless I'm wrong, i always thought it meant "Here is a game the GB guys are looking at for themselves, and you can come along for the ride."

I'm not referring to Giant Bomb. This is a general problem online. There was that absurd blowup about a Polygon video of Doom being played terribly, and that was a known thing. Someone played a video game poorly, and that became a water cooler topic. I get better quality for my bandwidth on YouTube, so I've watched most of the Brad & Dan Play Hitman videos over there, and the water in that pool is freaking toxic.

If I payed $250 to watch a three-hour stream, and they played games so poorly that it wasn't enjoyable, then yeah, it's like a concert. I payed $35 for three hundred hours of content, and much more than $35 worth of it was enjoyable. And I wasn't speaking down to nonsubscribers, in fact I didn't even notice frostyryan wasn't. I think tolerating ads is a bigger sacrifice than the cost of a subscription. But taking the amount a subscription costs, divided by all of the videos, and looking at the percentage of the cost that payed for videos I didn't like still means I'm paying next to nothing for them. That's not an excuse for the staff here to put in less effort, but like I said, this was never about Giant Bomb anyway, but about skill bashing in general.

Without getting into whether I ultimately agree with you or not I think your breakdown of the concert analogy is a bit off base. For one thing not every concert is a huge expensive thing and I've been to my share of $10 and $15 dollar shows so it's not the craziest of comparisons. Also, yes, there are hundreds of hours of content but to be fair for any particular subscriber they may not be paying their sub with the intention of listening or watching all of it. You have some people who subbed for Project B.E.A.S.T., some people who subscribe just for the Bombcast, some people who will never watch a UPF, some who are in exclusively for Matt Rorie appearances, etc..

My point was that people aint raging becouse they didnt get value for their money. If it costed $9999 or if it was free doesnt really matter here.

I've never voiced this before, but I do wish they would just take their time and stop worrying about making the video entertaining, just do your thing and stop worrying about whatever. Do they think we're not going to watch them if they make a two hour video? Seeing them rush and fail repeatedly in unfunny ways isn't entertaining. Just do you thing and we'll watch, you're playing a video game, you don't need to rush through it to make it entertaining, is the game not good enough to be played properly?

You might be surprised at the number of comments we see from people in the vein of, "I don't pay $35 a year for you to play games badly, do your research" or similar "WTF is this 2 hour UPF, I don't pay you do do short shows with terrible games!" Happens all the time, and the comments are usually a lot more rude than that.

I think this is really accurate. When they just make constant mistakes because they feel like they need to rush for no reason at all as if that is what makes a video entertaining, that can get boring and tiring to watch. Seeing them take their time and learning and taking in the mechanics is much more enjoyable than seeing the crew rush through a game and get frustrated through no fault but their own.

@greylion: I'd also like to add: this is Giant Bomb. When is there ever a piece of content where we say it would have been better if it was shorter? I'm actually disappointed if podcast don't reach the 3 hour mark. Quick Looks of tiny games can be short for obvious reasons, but when did we over go: 'this Quick Look is 1,5 hours... way too long'?

Never. Longer is better for the type of content these guys make.

@mike: Yeh, as always when there is even the tiniest amount of money people gets super riled up like they have a god given right to everything. Still thats taking an specific GB example and i dont really think thats the root of the cause here, theres even more toxic comments on free stuff.

I'm totally the same way, I'm always a tiny bit disappointed when the podcast isn't three hours long just because I enjoy hearing everyone talk so much for so long.

So yeah, I totally don't understand, what I feel is, this non-existent pressure they feel to hurry up from the users. I'm pretty sure we'd much rather watch them have a better grasp on the mechanics than seeing than fail in uninteresting ways.

@zolroyce: @mike: @bernard_bernoulli: That's what I recall one of them saying in the early Giant Bomb days, though I couldn't point to exact place and time it was said.