Support NeoGAF

[stan423321]

The "not the target audience" argument makes me wish to pull up the "not for critics" Penny Arcade comic. And I have a serious dislike of Penny Arcade, so, well.

Let's try this again. I'm not allowed to say that Eurovision songs universally sucked, because I'm clearly not the target audience, which is evidenced by the fact that I thought they sucked? WTF?

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

I'm just pointing out that neogaf is not representative of game players at large or Polygon's target audience. People have different preferences. Neogaf is it's own bubble.

Which is fine, that is true. But it doesn't have anything to do with the response to this video. They had to lock comments on the video so I'd argue that it missed the mark of their intended audience severely. It's an anomaly compared to their other vids so you arguing it was some intentional choice for their target audience makes no sense.

 

[Reebot]

You're welcome to criticize it. And they're welcome to respond to feedback if you're in their target audience. If you're not in they're target audience, why would they care about your feedback? They're not making it for you. Not everything has to be for everyone.

So, again, outside criticism is pointless if unwanted, and "target audience" conveniently overlaps entirely with "enjoys the content."

If you don't agree with this reasoning, you might be outside the target audience.

 

[Lo_Fi]

Like I said multiple times in this thread, and it's a statement that has yet to have a counter to, there is nothing that a person who has no idea what they're doing can teach you that a person who is skilled at something can't by dumbing down their actions and explaining to you.

I agree. But Polygon clearly believes by their actions that it is not worth the extra effort to do so. They are content with doing a little-effort playthrough of the 1st 30 minutes.

Even if someone is completely oblivious to how FPS games work, a video with zero commentary and bad gameplay does them no favors in either helping them to understand this new game or letting them know if the game functions well.

But I disagree here. I saw the types of guns. I saw the art style. I heard the music. I saw the demons. Now I have a sense of what the game is like.

Which is fine, that is true. But it doesn't have anything to do with the response to this video. They had to lock comments on the video so I'd argue that it missed the mark of their intended audience severely. It's an anomaly compared to their other vids so you arguing it was some intentional choice for their target audience makes no sense.

It may not be an intentional choice to play poorly, it's just that my guess is that they didn't care enough to put in extra effort to re-record something or play better.

And I wouldn't say youtube comments are representative of any audience.

 

[Springfoot]

I thought aim assist would essentially snap your cursor to the intended target, not bend the bullet to hit the intended target.

*I haven't played a shooter on console in over a decade.

Meanwhile, some people claim that the "circle" take on aim assist isn't aim assist, but "bullet magnetism". Personally, I find that a little pedantic. If it helps you with aiming, it's aim assist.

I don't play shooters on console myself, but 'bullet magnetism' is how aim assist works for most modern shooters. The original Halo was the first title I remember implementing and/or really refining this and defining how modern shooters handled on controller without needing to resort to forcibly snapping the player's reticle around. Subsequent titles that came after it basically copied this approach, and I remember Rainbow Six 3 on the OGXbox making a big deal about their soft reticle aim assist back around its launch. RS3 actually did some interesting stuff where it used the aim assist magnetism circle as a gameplay mechanic to emulate how accurate the player would be in different situations, so that standing still gave the player a huge magnetism circle (a situation where their character would be expected to be more accurate), while either moving or shooting (dealing with movement or recoil) caused the circle to shrink down and therefore make them less accurate.

Here's a video that shows some behind the scenes for how aim assist generally works. In this example they've chosen to slow down the turning speed when the reticle is close to an enemy and do some subtle tracking if the enemy moves, but not every console shooter does this (not sure what Doom is doing). Also note that they're able to get 'accurate' headshots by simply moving any part of the center crosshair over the enemy's head - the actual center point of the crosshair is actually irrelevant. But essentially, your bullets don't simply head toward where the center of the reticle is but will instead gravitate toward the enemy so long as the larger circle is somewhere on the target. It shifts aiming with a controller from a frustrating game of trying to be pinpoint accurate with imprecise tools (analog sticks) to an easier game of horseshoes and handgrenades where 'close counts' but without taking control away from the player by jerking their aim around for them.

In contrast, GTAV and Uncharted 4 have lock-on aim options, which do forcibly snap the reticle toward the closest enemy as soon as the player pulls up their weapon. It's largely semantics, but in general aim assist = bullet magnetism (sometimes with soft nudging when close to an enemy) and lock-on = reticle snapping.

EDIT: Another video showing the aim assist magnetism in practice.

 

[NinjamicWZ]

And what I'm saying is that, while it might be more informative or useful for someone to do that, Polygon has determined it is in their best interest to put not much effort into "playing well", as to them it is diminishing returns. They could put in more effort, but it wouldn't add enough views to their view count to justify it.

So it's low effort and that's why it looks like lazy incompetent garbage from someone who's never played a video game in their life, getting paid to do so. It's almost as if everyone has already been operating off that visibly apparent idea for the last six thousand pages.

 

[SirMossyBloke]

I agree. But Polygon clearly believes by their actions that it is not worth the extra effort to do so. They are content with doing a little-effort playthrough of the 1st 30 minutes.



But I disagree here. I saw the types of guns. I saw the art style. I heard the music. I saw the demons. Now I have a sense of what the game is like.

But you don't, as the game plays nothing like that to the average Joe. What it looks like is that it's really hard to hit enemies, it's a slow paced game, and the controls are awful.

 

[NoctisVsStar]

I mean not everyone can review a fighting game properly.. I mean would you take the word of someone who can't manage to throw a simple hadouken or let alone properly navigate the fighting arena? I'm not asking for Daigo to review the game but someone whos competent and perhaps some prior experience in the genre. How is that sounding elitist? These reviews can damage sales and mistakenly convince the average joe that the game is trash.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

I agree. But Polygon clearly believes by their actions that it is not worth the extra effort to do so. They are content with doing a little-effort playthrough of the 1st 30 minutes.



But I disagree here. I saw the types of guns. I saw the art style. I heard the music. I saw the demons. Now I have a sense of what the game is like.

You have a sense of everything but how the game is played, which is arguably the most important aspect of why a preview exists. This is like making a preview of a comic book that totally discounts all of the art in the book and just talks about the content of the word bubbles.

There would be absolutely nothing in that preview that wouldn't also be conveyed by a preview that includes both the dialogue and art of the book. Just like a preview of a person playing the game competently would include you seeing all of the guns, demons and general sense of what the game is like. Literally nothing in this preview wouldn't be conveyed if someone competent was behind the controller.

 

[Lo_Fi]

But you don't, as the game plays nothing like that to the average Joe. What it looks like is that it's really hard to hit enemies, it's a slow paced game, and the controls are awful.

What is the average joe in this case?

You have a sense of everything but how the game is played, which is arguably the most important aspect of why a preview exists.

And my position is that some people come to games for other things than just gameplay. This is why games like Gone Home exist, or Journey, or why twine games exist, etc. Polygon is clearly content with this video only appealing to the people who want to see what the environments are like, what the narrative is like, how the art style is throughout a chunk of the game, what the enemies might look like, the tone of the game, the musical stylings of the game, etc.

True, you may show more elements of the game with a better player behind the controller, but clearly polygon doesn't think it's worth the effort to do so.

 

[Jumplion]

Is the person playing in this video actually the reviewer for the game? Because a lot of this discussion is on the basis that this person is reviewing it. I'm looking at this footage of Doom from looks to be the actual reviewer, so unless Gies was unbelievably drunk that evening, I don't think anyone has to worry about controls affecting the review score.

 

[SirMossyBloke]

What is the average joe in this case?



And my position is that some people come to games for other things than just gameplay. This is why games like Gone Home exist, or Journey, or why twine games exist, etc. Polygon is clearly content with this video only appealing to the people who want to see what the environments are like, what the narrative is like, how the art style is throughout a chunk of the game, what the enemies might look like, the tone of the game, the musical stylings of the game, etc.

The average Joe is not the guy playing.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

What is the average joe in this case?

Considering how huge CoD/PS4 is and the fact that Polygon is a video game centric website, I'd have to assume that the "Average Joe" visiting their website or Youtube is someone that understands that you can move the left stick and the right stick at the same time.

Are polygons target audience people who have no idea what a videogame is? Because they write articles like they have no idea and based on this video they play games like it as well.

Actually it would be a great thread if someone took Polygon articles and dumbed them down to the level some people think this video is for.

Their reviews would be a mess:

"In DOOM the left stick controls your movement, while the right stick controls which way you look. Keep in mind, you can move both of these sticks at the same time!"

 

[TalOrtRal]

Which is fine, that is true. But it doesn't have anything to do with the response to this video. They had to lock comments on the video so I'd argue that it missed the mark of their intended audience severely. It's an anomaly compared to their other vids so you arguing it was some intentional choice for their target audience makes no sense.

They didn't lock the comments. You can leave one right now. That whole "they locked the comments" thing was just started by someone here who hates Polygon. Actually, the entire point of the video was Polygon hate. They took a 30 minute video, edited it to the worst 2 minutes skill-wise, then pass it off as representative of the overall skill level of the reviewer.

So pretty much par for the course for NeoGAF.

 

[AEREC]

Simply said, Polygon has fucked up and there is no way around it. They wanted a video as quick as possible, and instead of showcasing what the game is, they rushed and uploaded this.

Even more simply said (or asked)..why do people care so much?

 

[Lo_Fi]

Considering how huge CoD/PS4 is and the fact that Polygon is a video game centric website, I'd have to assume that the "Average Joe" visiting their website or Youtube is someone that understands that you can move the left stick and the right stick at the same time.

I would agree. Getting more specific, I would guess that the average joe that visits their website, or the average joe they want to visit their website, does not care enough about this in a random no-commentary preview to not watch the video if they are interested in the visual, audio, or narrative parts of the game. If I'm wrong, then the views and clicks on Polygon will speak for themselves and they will lose business/viewers (in the long term, the views on this specific video will be weird because of the "controversy").

Even more simply said (or asked)..why do people care so much?

Not sure which side you're asking.

 

[DieH@rd]

Even more simply said (or asked)..why do people care so much?

We like good video games.

 

[Syriel]

They didn't lock the comments. You can leave one right now. That whole "they locked the comments" thing was just started by someone here who hates Polygon. Actually, the entire point of the video was Polygon hate. They took a 30 minute video, edited it to the worst 2 minutes skill-wise, then pass it off as representative of the overall skill level of the reviewer.

So pretty much par for the course for NeoGAF.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

I would agree. Getting more specific, I would guess that the average joe that visits their website, or the average joe they want to visit their website, does not care enough about this in a random no-commentary preview to not watch the video if they are interested in the visual, audio, or narrative parts of the game. If I'm wrong, then the views and clicks on Polygon will speak for themselves and they will lose business/viewers.

The Average Joe probably also understands that you can move both your body and your head at the same time. So watching this probably baffles them as much as it baffles us here. Even the Average Joe isn't gaining anything from this video that they wouldn't gain if they watched a video with someone competent behind the controller.

And again, you're arguing that people should be able to create low quality content when a higher quality content could attract the same viewers plus even more. Which is just illogical from both a consumer and business perspective. There are videos of really dumb shit all over the internet that get a lot of views, that doesn't mean you should encourage people who are supposed to be professionals to contribute to that when they could be doing something far more useful.

 

[stan423321]

Confirming. It's possible that some are seeing the option to post, but the fact is you can't see any comment, which at this point is quite telling.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

They didn't lock the comments. You can leave one right now. That whole "they locked the comments" thing was just started by someone here who hates Polygon.

False. You are looking at the wrong video. The original 30 min one, made by Polygon, has comments (and the Like/Dislike bar) disabled. The video mocking Polygon has comments enabled.

Not that it necessarily means anything, as I wouldn't blame anyone from disabling comments in general, but it's telling that their other videos has no such lock.

 

[AEREC]

We like good video games.

K...but how does someone else playing affect your enjoyment of them?

 

[shamanick]

Keep in mind, you can move both of these sticks at the same time!"[/b]

Come on that's just elitism

 

[gunslikewhoa]

And my position is that some people come to games for other things than just gameplay. This is why games like Gone Home exist, or Journey, or why twine games exist, etc. Polygon is clearly content with this video only appealing to the people who want to see what the environments are like, what the narrative is like, how the art style is throughout a chunk of the game, what the enemies might look like, the tone of the game, the musical stylings of the game, etc.

What in the holy fuck? People who come to games for other things than just gameplay aren't watching Doom videos on YouTube. What you're talking about may be why games like Gone Home exist, but certainly not fucking Doom lol.

 

[AEREC]

Not sure which side you're asking.

I guess the side that is putting way too much energy into discussing something like this.

 

[gunslikewhoa]

Is the person playing in this video actually the reviewer for the game? Because a lot of this discussion is on the basis that this person is reviewing it. I'm looking at this footage of Doom from looks to be the actual reviewer, so unless Gies was unbelievably drunk that evening, I don't think anyone has to worry about controls affecting the review score.

No, that's not the basis of thks discussion at all. That was cleared up many pages ago.

 

[gunslikewhoa]

They didn't lock the comments. You can leave one right now. That whole "they locked the comments" thing was just started by someone here who hates Polygon. Actually, the entire point of the video was Polygon hate. They took a 30 minute video, edited it to the worst 2 minutes skill-wise, then pass it off as representative of the overall skill level of the reviewer.

So pretty much par for the course for NeoGAF.

Yeah, they did. They are locked right now.

We're not discussing comments on the two minute whatever. We're talking about the original video on Polygon's channel, which has comments disabled.

 

[Lo_Fi]

The Average Joe probably also understands that you can move both your body and your head at the same time. So watching this probably baffles them as much as it baffles us here. Even the Average Joe isn't gaining anything from this video that they wouldn't gain if they watched a video with someone competent behind the controller.

And again, you're arguing that people should be able to create low quality content when a higher quality content could attract the same viewers plus even more. Which is just illogical from both a consumer and business perspective. There are videos of really dumb shit all over the internet that get a lot of views, that doesn't mean you should encourage people who are supposed to be professionals to contribute to that when they could be doing something far more useful.

I'm guessing from a business perspective why it makes sense for them to do.

It makes them enough money to continue what they are doing. Putting more effort into it may get them some more viewers, but not enough viewers to justify the cost (or at least, that's the business risk they are placing their low-stakes bets on). People who care enough to get mad at this video are a vocal minority. If that's not the case, then I'm wrong, and Polygon is wrong, and they will lose viewership for it. My guess is that the people who are upset about this either don't care about Polygon in the first place, or it's not enough people for Polygon to care about losing. But I could be wrong.

What in the holy fuck? People who come to games for other things than just gameplay aren't watching Doom videos on YouTube. What you're talking about may be why games like Gone Home exist, but certainly not fucking Doom lol.

Are you arguing that the visuals, narrative, and audio have nothing to do with Doom's appeal? Sure, the gameplay is a large part of the appeal, but if I'm looking to see if the new Doom game is good, gameplay is not the ONLY part of the appeal. What if I just want to see if the tone is goofy or self-serious? What if I want to hear the music and hear if it's reminiscent of the original? What if I just want to see how fast the movement speed is, to see if it's similar in that way to the original? None of these rely on someone playing well.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Are you arguing that the visuals, narrative, and audio have nothing to do with Doom's appeal? Sure, the gameplay is a large part of the appeal,

Um, yes, it is, and if a video fails to show the proper basics of that because it is so inept, then it is clearly a failure of a video.

but if I'm looking to see if the new Doom game is good, gameplay is not the ONLY part of the appeal. What if I just want to see if the tone is goofy or self-serious? What if I want to hear the music and hear if it's reminiscent of the original?

Then you can watch the actually competently played videos on youtube made by players. Like... Polygon' actual other Doom videos other than this one!

Why do you keep defending this? Seriously, why?

What if I just want to see how fast the movement speed is, to see if it's similar in that way to the original?

Well, how is a video of a person not even able to use the analog sticks correctly going to help you with that?

 

[gunslikewhoa]

Are you arguing that the visuals, narrative, and audio have nothing to do with Doom's appeal? Sure, the gameplay is a large part of the appeal, but if I'm looking to see if the new Doom game is good, gameplay is not the ONLY part of the appeal. What if I just want to see if the tone is goofy or self-serious? What if I want to hear the music and hear if it's reminiscent of the original? What if I just want to see how fast the movement speed is, to see if it's similar in that way to the original? None of these rely on someone playing well.

I'm arguing that the gameplay for a game such as Doom is such a large part of the appeal that if you don't show how the game actually plays, you have done no service to anyone whatsoever.

I would also argue that bringing up games like Gone Home and Journey in this context is ridiculous.

 

[Mechanized]

Ah shit. He's trolling and we fell for it. Goddamn.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

I guess the side that is putting way too much energy into discussing something like this.

"Guys why are we discussing things about the gaming press. This isn't a forum for discussion about that kind of thing!"

 

[Valkyr1983]

I'm arguing that the gameplay for a game such as Doom is such a large part of the appeal that if you don't show how the game actually plays, you have done no service to anyone whatsoever.

I would also argue that bringing up games like Gone Home and Journey in this context is ridiculous.

Why does polygon owe it to ID or Bethesda to make this game look good?

 

[Fistwell]

Their target audience is obviously, at least for this video, people who don't care enough about how well someone plays a video game to not watch a video.

Polygon sure has a very specific target audience these days.

Edit: was it "press reset on your target audience" or "press reset on basic eye-hand coordination skills"?

 

[Zen_Arcade]

I'm guessing from a business perspective why it makes sense for them to do.

It makes them enough money to continue what they are doing. Putting more effort into it may get them some more viewers, but not enough viewers to justify the cost (or at least, that's the business risk they are placing their low-stakes bets on). People who care enough to get mad at this video are a vocal minority. If that's not the case, then I'm wrong, and Polygon is wrong, and they will lose viewership for it. My guess is that the people who are upset about this either don't care about Polygon in the first place, or it's not enough people for Polygon to care about losing. But I could be wrong.



Are you arguing that the visuals, narrative, and audio have nothing to do with Doom's appeal? Sure, the gameplay is a large part of the appeal, but if I'm looking to see if the new Doom game is good, gameplay is not the ONLY part of the appeal. What if I just want to see if the tone is goofy or self-serious? What if I want to hear the music and hear if it's reminiscent of the original? What if I just want to see how fast the movement speed is, to see if it's similar in that way to the original? None of these rely on someone playing well.

Again, your argument is terrible coming from a consumer perspective. What keeps their lights running shouldn't be a concern for a consumer. Consumers should be concerned with what helps them the most in their purchasing decisions. Which this video not only doesn't do, but debateably can mislead you about.

Even if for whatever reason youre more concerned with the well being of Polygon you shouldn't be surprised that consumers put their own interests over the fact that a website can be lazy and still keep their lights on. By that logic companies could have all kinds of shady practices and it would be OK because there would be a subset of the population who support them enough to stay in business.

Why does polygon owe it to ID or Bethesda to make this game look good?

Dude, either answer me directly or stop bringing up the same dumb argument. Because I know that I've personally addressed this issue to you twice now and you just bail out without so much as a rebuttal.

You keep asking the same pointless question and when I give you an answer you flee until you can come back and ask the same question again to someone new.

 

[Zomba13]

Why does polygon owe it to ID or Bethesda to make this game look good?

They don't but if they are showing off the first 30 minutes of a game you'd expect them to show it how it should be played. You wouldn't show 30 minutes of Forza where the guy just drives backwards the whole race or plays it like a bumper car simulator. Well, you could, it's youtube and the internet and if it's your channel you can dow hat you like as long as it's not against the sites TOS, but it wouldn't be a very good video showing what the new Forza is like when played properly.

 

[Einchy]

Why does polygon owe it to ID or Bethesda to make this game look good?

They don't, they owe it to their viewers to properly represent the thing that they are trying to show. Their viewers go to their website to get a realistic representation of what it will feel like to play any game and if the person who is playing cannot do that, they do a disservice to their viewer.

 

[LOLDSFAN]

It's also worth pointing out that Polygon was founded with the express purpose of "raising the bar" for videogame journalism.

The site exists because its founders wanted to "do better" than the status quo.

Given that it's not really fair for anyone to toss an accusation of "elitism!" at critics, when the main thrust of said criticism is that Polygon isn't living up to the standards it set for itself.

Let's be real though... most new sites, organizations, businesses (especially when made up of veteran employees) will say the same thing. They want to be "better" than the competition.

It really doesn't mean much at this point.

That's probably not relevant to the thread, but I figured I'd point it out.

 

[Bedameister]

https://twitter.com/PorygonNews/status/731610409715781632

 

[gunslikewhoa]

Why does polygon owe it to ID or Bethesda to make this game look good?

Eh...what? I never said they did.

 

[M_A_C]

Haha. This reminds me of that Seinfeld episode when the Tennis Pro pressures Jerry into buying a new racket, and then it turns out the Tennis Pro is horrible at tennis.

yeah thats perfect.

https://youtu.be/KDRImgMxNQg?t=47s

 

[SirMossyBloke]

Why does polygon owe it to ID or Bethesda to make this game look good?

You mean misrepresenting a game is OK?

 

[Valkyr1983]

Eh...what? I never said they did.

The question was directed to anyone criticizing them for not showing the game in the best light or how it plays proper

If your a polygon reader then fair enough if this upsets you. Highly doubt anyone in here is so the uproar over this seems weird

Like people are upset that they make the game look bad which is kinda weird, you guys don't work for ID or Bethesda so why would you care if this doesn't make it look great

 

[Fletcher]

They don't, they owe it to their viewers to properly represent the thing that they are trying to show. Their viewers go to their website to get a realistic representation of what it will feel like to play any game and if the person who is playing cannot do that, they do a disservice to their viewer.

The video looked like someone playing doom. It properly represented someone playing doom.

 

[Einchy]

The video looked like someone playing doom. It properly represented someone playing doom.

This thread wouldn't exist if that was the case.

 

[Lo_Fi]

Even if for whatever reason youre more concerned with the well being of Polygon you shouldn't be surprised that consumers put their own interests over the fact that a website can be lazy and still keep their lights on. By that logic companies could have all kinds of shady practices and it would be OK because there would be a subset of the population who support them enough to stay in business.

I'd agree, except what's shady about it? Polygon isn't in the business of making games look good.

I would also argue that bringing up games like Gone Home and Journey in this context is ridiculous.

I'd argue that it's ridiculous to assert that all players come to a game for the same reason.

There is a HUGE range of types of players that all come to tons of different games for tons of different reasons. Clearly a majority in this thread refuse to acknowledge that.

Why does polygon owe it to ID or Bethesda to make this game look good?

Thank you.

Polygon sure has a very specific target audience these days.

Edit: was it "press reset on your target audience" or "press reset on basic eye-hand coordination skills"?

If it's too specific for their budget, then they'll go out of business. Until then, they'll continue to be successful.

The video looked like someone playing doom. It properly represented someone playing doom.

Give this man a trophy.

This thread wouldn't exist if that was the case.

You are likely a vocal minority.

 

[HDNA]

If I ran a board game site and had a weekly fun video playing a board game with brand new random people (of varying experiences), you'd get a completely mixed bag on proficiency. Why do you require I only invite seasoned board game players to the table for the video. What if my intent is to merely show board games, engage in board game culture. What part of the Polygon video said "Serious Game Review Time: DOOM". And hell, I'd even argue if it did, the new game player's take on it would be every bit as valid. Just because they aren't as dexterous on the twin sticks as people here doesn't make their views less valuable.

If anything we should be welcoming new blood into this space as it's incredibly healthy and helps to evaluate where we are and where we're headed.

are you serious? welcoming new blood is when someone who's not into gaming bought a console and is asking if DOOM is a good start, not someone who's showing me a new FPS while not knowing how to aim and hugging the enemies

if don't know anything about the game i would say that the game is bad cause of how polygon presented the game

 

[Zen_Arcade]

The video looked like someone playing doom. It properly represented someone playing doom.

The video looks like someone who moved around the sticks on a controller while DOOM was booted up. This is like saying that someone who is running with a football is ernestly playing football simply because they're on a football field.

I'd agree, except what's shady about it? Polygon isn't in the business of making games look good.



I'd argue that it's ridiculous to assert that all players come to a game for the same reason.

There is a HUGE range of types of players that all come to tons of different games for tons of different reasons. Clearly a majority in this thread refuse to acknowledge that.



Thank you.



If it's too specific for their budget, then they'll go out of business. Until then, they'll continue to be successful.



Give this man a trophy.



You are likely a vocal minority.

Polygon is in the business of informing the public about what video games look like. This video barely does this, if at all.

Again, this is like saying that if Hanes sold you a shirt that was barely held together you wouldn't have room to complain because they technically sold you a shirt and enough people buy their shitty shirts to keep them in business.

Someone doing well enough to simply not fail does not mean they're doing well and you're essentially arguing in favor of letting peopld give the bare minimum effort. Which again, I can't imagine why you would do as a consumer.

 

[Einchy]

You are likely a vocal minority.

Uh, this whole thread is filled with people who understand how ridiculous that video is, they had to disable the comments and dislikes and now they're even poking fun at themselves on Twitter.

No, you're the minority here. It's weird how you cannot see this.

How many people have told you that you're wrong so far? And how many agree with you? 2 people at most? Yeah, I'm sure you're the majority.

 

[SirMossyBloke]

The video looked like someone playing doom. It properly represented someone playing doom.

No it doesnt.

It looked like someone struggling to play Doom due to its controls, and struggling to kill anything on the screen.

I guess that's how the game plays, right?