Thing is the community servers are not always up and running with players in them. Often times one can find themselves with no actual servers to choose from but these casual servers, so I’m inclined to say @Deathi raises a fair point @STARRYSOCK; it isn’t fair to expect us to not become agitated by the situation, there is a very clear difference between someone new and someone who makes you question how they even figured out how to turn on their computer. Yes everyone starts somewhere but there comes a point where one has to acknowledge that certain games are not a good starting point to enter into a genre of games.
For the sake of argument, the DMC franchise had been notorious for being very difficult to pick-up for newcomers due to the way the difficulty was ramping up from installment to installment; this is something that was addressed in the reboot DMC: Devil May Cry, as they made the default and lower difficulties much more manageable and streamlined certain mechanics to simplify the game.
Dirty Bomb is in no way the most friendly entry into shooters to pick from, due to the faster-paced nature of its gameplay, and it’s unfair to expect veterans to not grow agitated with newcomers purely because community servers exist. These servers all suffer the same flaw as any other, they require players to be on them to be viable; which as I’ve stated before is simply not always the case. Grom personal experience the ones in the NA region are often only populated later into the night most times, and very rarely in the early morning or afternoon. So personally I’ve found myself increasingly agitated when I am forced to carry every match with no discourse other than to simply not play the game; that being said both sides have a fair point that has been made, but this is not a simple black-and-white matter. Perhaps it will improve with a higher population, but that’s a good ways off considering we still have no designated date for the launch of 1.0, though as of now it is simply not a constant option.
The vote system exists in this game, and like any other system in any game, is prone to abuse. This is something SD has allowed to be done time and time again with no repercussions. The tutorial was simplified and made even further bare-bones than its previous incarnations and thus players are put into the game in an even less-readied state to play; they’ve ultimately made it increasingly less newbie-friendly of an experience and this backlash is perfectly within reason and should be expected. So yes, we can try and “play nice” and all of that, but in the end we’re also human just like they are; we’re just as subject to the whims of our emotional outbursts as everyone else, and the limits of our patience, thus complicating the matter. If you remove human emotion and the stresses of life that exist outside of the game, then yes it becomes a black-and-white matter; however to take such a stance is folly and ultimately places itself upon a paradoxical foundation.
I’ll close this on a quote from Friedrich Nietzsche and my analysis of the philosophy behind it:
“But the worst enemy you can meet will always be yourself; you lie in wait for yourself in caverns and forests. Lonely one, you are going the way to yourself! And your way goes past yourself, and past your seven devils! You will be a heretic to yourself and witch and soothsayer and fool and doubter and unholy one and villain. You must be ready to burn yourself in your own flame: how could you become new, if you had not first become ashes?”
-Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
We are neither inherently good or evil, these are relative ideals defined by a society’s moral standards and values; they serve as an anchor that chains our way of thinking and serves as both a comfort and prison for our own perception of self, lulling us into seeing the world through the eyes of a child where matters exist within a simple dichotomy. And how can one truly rise and advance, become more than they are, if they can’t first acknowledge and accept their own shortcomings and limitations.
No matter how far humanity may rise there will always be an inkling of barbarism within us. To deny our baser emotions and underlying nature is folly, one that paralyzes and holds us in stasis; for to deny such things is to deny what we are, the very things that make us human and define us. Our pride and moral constructs serve as a constraint to free thinking, to critical analysis and deconstruction of ideals; we are quick to judge and even quicker to denounce ideals which put what we perceive as truth into question, we fear what we do not understand or refuse to. Such behavior is akin to that of a zealous fanatic, who will not be swayed in the slightest from his perceived truths; reality is hardly a simple construct and one awash with gray-areas that fall outside the basic dichotomy of “right & wrong”, of “good & evil”.
Even the actions within the dichotomy are rife with contradiction. To pity someone places yourself in a clearer position of superiority while openly denoting the inferior circumstance of the pitied party; this leaves them vulnerable, more liable to become reliant on others thus ultimately crippling them. While empathy and sympathy are often portrayed within a positive light in our moral spectrum, it is often overlooked how such actions can impact the recipient. So I would pose the question:
“Is it really praise-worthy to show such pity upon someone when it risks crippling them and creating such forced dependency? Or is it an even more praise-worthy act of compassion to take the approach of ‘tough love’ and allow for self-dependence and self-sufficiency to emerge?”
This is a matter of the old adage, “You give a man a fish, he’ll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he’ll eat for a lifetime.”, and it still holds validity here as an analogy.
If you hold their hand and shelter them too much (the act of giving them the fish but never teaching them how to obtain it) they’ll never truly grow. While, on the flip-side, if you ignore them completely they will most certainly fail, thus you provide guidance and “show them the ropes” (the act of showing them “how to fish”). It is a conundrum and balancing act only further complicated by the construct of morality; you “hold their hand” and shelter them too much and they become inherently less-capable of functioning alone (further magnifying any shortcomings that existed prior). Yet at the same time you need to guide them enough so that they won’t be doomed to failure, without taking it too far and undermining the purpose of the act.
TL;DR: So I’d say both of you raise good points @STARRYSOCK and @Deathi but this situation is a tangled web, one that will likely persist far into the future, that roots itself within the concepts of morality. Unfortunately this also means it becomes that much more complicated due to the nature of the construct, and likely a circular argument at this juncture.