3 hours ago, Novadude987 said:

He's the only whiny one in the entire documentary

Yes. The people putting together the documentary get to choose what lines to include, what clips to exclude, and how to edit it all together.

All documentaries, news reports, and stories have bias like that.  Learning to recognize them is an important skill.

As for the people saying "deal with it", or "set some boundaries", I think those are the unhealthy reactions.  While these situations happen in the community far too often, recognize that they are serious crimes.  If you happen to live in a crime-ridden community you do need a proverbially thick skin to survive there, but that doesn't mean you should ignore the crime, do nothing to fix it, or ignore victims.

4 hours ago, Novadude987 said:

The thing that gets me though is that all of the other devs in that documentary have had to deal with that and they did not react the way that he did. I believe his problem was explained by Tommy of Super Meat Boy. You've got to set a boundary between you and the community and Phil just couldn't let it go. Not to say that death threats are something you should just "deal with" but he sucks at dealing with adversity. He's the only whiny one in the entire documentary and is the only one that said stuff like "I'm gonna fucking kill that guy". He's too damn dramatic for his own good. I don't know, I respect everyone's opinion here, I just think he is a bit superficial.

It sounds to me like you already made up your mind on the subject of Phil Fish before you made this thread.

5 hours ago, Novadude987 said:

The thing that gets me though is that all of the other devs in that documentary have had to deal with that and they did not react the way that he did. 

I'm sure they're all had to deal with different things, and different people react differently.  So one person's reactions cant be used as a yardstick for another person's reactions to different situations that we dont know anything about.

In any case, he didnt say anything other than his opinions about some games and maybe some comments about how people were treating him.  I really dont even care what he said.  It just bothers me that people get so upset over a person not liking a thing and publicly saying so, to the point that we need to waste time arguing over it in a forum thread.

12 hours ago, frob said:

Absolutely not a jerk.  At least, not a jerk for saying "I am done, I am not finishing this, leave me alone forever."

It is not a matter of saying "suck it up" or "handle trolls better" or "get a thicker skin".  Many successful game developers become targets. Those aren't just minor issues, they are repeated targets of major felony crimes, including death threats against themselves and their families, sometimes with their names, addresses, photos, and the schools they attend. 

People on my team have received death threats, including death threats accompanied by doxxing attacks. It is stressful to everyone involved, including the police and FBI agents who were all brought in to investigate.  It changes the workplace environment to know that your designer's kids have death threats with their pictures and school associated with them. You know the designer won't be able to focus on making the best game, no matter how much they're working they will always have in their mind the thought of their child with a target on them. 

 

The toxic cultures that some sub-groups encourage are a horrible thing. It is something the industry does very little to correct.

Much of the casual slang used by some immature gamers, comments like "go kill yourself" for petty annoyances, are completely unacceptable in any other social context.  In many contexts it would be enough to get a person fired, arrested, or face civil penalties. Many sub-groups are extremely aggressive digitally.  Then there are people who engage in swatting where people have been shot, and then think it is a joke for Internet gold.  But the highly toxic gaming culture not only accepts vitriol as normal, many sub-cultures of fans praise and promote the hatred, the attacks, the insults. In some sub-cultures these are not seen as the actual crimes of blackmail or stalking or harassment or criminal threats, but instead seen as a victory for their group in inducing change.  

Imagine if your role was reversed.  You're putting out a project, a work of passion where you invest all you have to create something amazing.  And your results are hugely popular.  But it is popular not among adoring fans, but fans who are quite literally threatening to kill you over your work.  Fans who write the most horrible hate messages because you haven't done whatever it is that your fan imagined you would do. 

At the time I hoped his leaving would make a dent in the culture, but I think it has only gotten worse. 

 

When you fear for your life because of multiple death threats, and when the government tells you that they are actual credible threats against your life and you need to take precautions, that changes things.  When that happens, I agree that it is not only a good thing to step away, but to make a big deal about the crimes as well. He risked (and received) even more threats due to his visible decision to say the behavior is unacceptable.  In that regard he has my complete respect and appreciation.

(I don't know Phil Fish and haven't seem this movie)

But I'd like to react to your post in general because I believe that on many occasions there's much more to this than meets the eye. And as a hardcore gamer I can give you a perspective from "the other side". Disclaimer I don't partake in any personal threats but I have on plenty occasions partaken in heated debates that typically start somewhat like this: 

 A certain game has a dedicated fanbase. These fans have been there from the start and some of them have thousands of hours into the game, they interact on the forums talking about possible improvements to the game etc. Then a sequel is announced. All players exited and lots of discussion on the forums. However the hardcore players aren't happy this time because features they really like in the original game are being axed/are not coming back wtf?? It becomes more and more clear that the game is now being targeted at the casual player mostly and even worse, there are now options in the game that cost real money to unlock!! By now there are heated battles raging on the forums resulting in the hardcore players being called "a vocal minority" and forum bans are issued, making things worse. The hardcore players take it like a slap in the face and some of them will go a step further then just walking away from this company. 

The above is a simple real-life example and in my opinion it's not just the hardcore players who are to blaim but the whole money-driven motivation which seems to affect companies more and more. (With Pay2Win probably as most hated "business model" out there)

4 hours ago, Oberon_Command said:

It sounds to me like you already made up your mind on the subject of Phil Fish before you made this thread.

The point of this post was to debate, whether I had preconceived opinions is irrelevant. Other people who have replied to this thread have been very helpful and I have taken all of their opinions into account. Stop being a troll and go somewhere else sir.  

1 hour ago, GimmeARPG said:

(I don't know Phil Fish and haven't seem this movie)

But I'd like to react to your post in general because I believe that on many occasions there's much more to this than meets the eye. And as a hardcore gamer I can give you a perspective from "the other side". Disclaimer I don't partake in any personal threats but I have on plenty occasions partaken in heated debates that typically start somewhat like this: 

 A certain game has a dedicated fanbase. These fans have been there from the start and some of them have thousands of hours into the game, they interact on the forums talking about possible improvements to the game etc. Then a sequel is announced. All players exited and lots of discussion on the forums. However the hardcore players aren't happy this time because features they really like in the original game are being axed/are not coming back wtf?? It becomes more and more clear that the game is now being targeted at the casual player mostly and even worse, there are now options in the game that cost real money to unlock!! By now there are heated battles raging on the forums resulting in the hardcore players being called "a vocal minority" and forum bans are issued, making things worse. The hardcore players take it like a slap in the face and some of them will go a step further then just walking away from this company. 

The above is a simple real-life example and in my opinion it's not just the hardcore players who are to blaim but the whole money-driven motivation which seems to affect companies more and more. (With Pay2Win probably as most hated "business model" out there)

I agree with this post. I hate that people are fixated on the "go big or go home" approach with AAA and they think that indie games can live up to those standards. Like, how can you compare a game with 100 employees to a game with 2 employees? Much less, how can you expect indie devs to make good quality games at the same speed as AAA devs? Fish definitely had justification in quitting, I just wish he hadn't stopped doing what he loved because people on forums can't grow up. 

15 minutes ago, JTippetts said:

Money is literally why these companies are in business. If a company can't make money and pay its employees based off a small cadre of vocal hardcore players, and their research indicates that they'd have a better chance of growing their business by expanding their audience to so-called 'casuals', then it would be a breach of trust and a betrayal of their shareholders to NOT do what they have to do. Regardless of how it makes the (usually small, in my experience, if vocal) group of hardcore players angry.

Now, I have a mostly negative opinion of pay-to-win. like a lot of people. However... the people in charge of a company do not have a duty to avoid pissing off the 'hardcore contingent' by not offering things that cost money. They have a duty to increase shareholder value, keep the company solvent, and pay the employees on time. Sometimes, the latter comes at the expense of the former. A company that isn't attracting new players is a company that isn't growing.

This is true, although it is a shame. Probably one of the biggest examples for me is with Konami and MGS5. They were just so focused on the profits...

8 hours ago, JTippetts said:

Money is literally why these companies are in business. If a company can't make money and pay its employees based off a small cadre of vocal hardcore players, and their research indicates that they'd have a better chance of growing their business by expanding their audience to so-called 'casuals', then it would be a breach of trust and a betrayal of their shareholders to NOT do what they have to do. Regardless of how it makes the (usually small, in my experience, if vocal) group of hardcore players angry.

Now, I have a mostly negative opinion of pay-to-win. like a lot of people. However... the people in charge of a company do not have a duty to avoid pissing off the 'hardcore contingent' by not offering things that cost money. They have a duty to increase shareholder value, keep the company solvent, and pay the employees on time. Sometimes, the latter comes at the expense of the former. A company that isn't attracting new players is a company that isn't growing.

I agree with the parts where you say companies need to make money so that is what they do. It is the reality of running a business. My point is more of a moral issue of how they do it. If in an example like I posted above, the people in charge would personally say to their fanbase "look, this sequel is going to be different because we want to widen our audience, we would like you to know that before you buy it" than it feels a lot different then that they decide to hire a community manager who's job it is to tell the fanbase that they're all going to love the game because of how great it is. We all know they will not go for the first option but will get the community manager on to it. They will screw a part of their fanbase who were there from the first hour and bought their products when they were still a small startup company, just because they want to sell boxes. This stinks.

I think you could compare this in some ways with the flak banks received during the 2008 crisis when the public realized the big bully banks out there were screwing people left right and center just to grab as much as they could. I think nobody finds it strange that these guys received all the flak they got and I think most people will say they got what they deserved. 

It seems to me that he might have been a very insecure person, in which case he made the mistake to show himself to the public knowing very well his insecurity could bring him to do things he would regret. Little dogs are the ones that bark the most because they feel the need to compensate for their lack of strength.