DLC as a whole will lead to two Broken Bases arguing with each other, with one half despising DLC, and the other half praising them. The fact is that DLC can have a lot of different meanings, DLC can be of very different types, and the absence of clear legislation about it doesn't really help, leaving the editors to do as they please when they propose DLC:
On the side of those who hate DLC, we have understandable complaints, since some DLC are content removed from the game in order to sell it under the disguise of DLC (such as some missions of Assassins Creed II), content already on the disk but that you need to unlock with a DLC in order to use it (such as the costumes of Street Fighter IV), content which could be seen as vital (or at least very useful) but that you need to buy as DLC in order to use it (such as the chest in which you can store your equipment in Dragon Age: Origins), or even some content which we can reasonably think should have been available in the game right from the start instead of being sold separately as DLC (such as the costumes and arena fights of Final Fantasy XIII-2, DLC available since the release of the game). Some DLC are not new content, but just a way to bribe your way to victory (such as some DLC in Tales Of Vesperia, which allow the player to gain levels, money, artes, items... It's not so much "downloadable content" here: more like "paying cheat codes"). And let's not start about the activation codes of Batman Arkham City, preventing you from accessing a part of the game if you buy a second hand copy of the game instead of a new one, which will makes it have less game content overall... Unless you buy the DLC which allow the access to these parts of the game. Overall, this side sees DLC as a cash machine for the editors, and fear that they are considered as cash cows.
On the other hand, the other side argues that DLC can provide new content and fun to a game way after its release, allowing us to prolong the experience. Also, some DLC are whole new levels or adventures, depending on the game, which can lead some DLC as being seen as true extensions. Needless to say, it depends heavily on the quality of the DLC.
Release day DLC (or DLC 'removed' from the game or needing to be 'unlocked') exists because of the second-hand game market. While game producers get a percentage of the profit when a retailer sells a game for the first time, in the case of second hand games the retailer keeps it all. Because second-hand is usually cheaper (albeit by a small amount) they make a large portion of the market. Therefore companies release 'unlocking' DLC so that even with second-hand releases, they still get some earnings for their work.
When one side will complain about the presence of DLC, the other side will often point to the other that they are not forced to buy DLC, which will lead this side to argue about the abuses of game companies when it comes to DLC, which will lead the other side to argue that some DLC are worth it, which can lead some people to say that the content should have been in the game originaly, etc... Rince and repeat ad nauseum.
Fable. There's enormous splits between those who like the first game, those who like the second, and those who like the third. Some enjoy the first and think the last two are utter garbage, others enjoy the first two and hate the third with a passion, and you get the odd bird who likes all three.
Gears of War 3 seems to have this verbally. Mostly due to the new weapons in the 3rd one, and minor fixes. Oh boy. Let's start:
The shotguns. The Gnasher has been there since the 1st and it's usually the main source of someone's death. A lot of people still today complain they didn't nerf it enough. And then there's the Sawed-Off. People complain of its cheap one-hit kill, but it's limited with 1 shot per reload, and can only kill you up close. Why is it cheap? It has the insta-kill, that people tend to use when they rush. It's like the Retro-lancer charge, without the manliness. Did we mention the Sawed-Off can kill multiple enemies if they are close enough?
The new rifle they brought in: The Retro Lancer has a better damage-modifier than the normal Lancer, but insted of the slow-movinginsta-kill saw, it has a sprinting bayonet charge. Because of people's tendancy to spray with it, due to it's lack of accuracy, that's why some hate it.
Then there's the grenades and power-weapons. The 'nades aren't any hassle besides the lack of warning of any incoming frags (it's thrid person and the 'nades are smaller than your character's hand) but hey, at least it makes them useful to kill campers! Anyway, the Ink 'nades are somewhat cheap, but the Fire 'nades require their 'nade to actually hit the target to kill it. If no,t you get a somewhat badly damage dealing spot, which if the opponent is new/unlucky/etc., they can get killed by. Slowly.
The power-weapons differ in the base however. Why? Only a few players usually go for them, which means the match usually goes about you and your trusty weapon against someone else's trusty weapon. Unless, of couse, the enemy team camps the power-weapons. But it rarely happens.
Shin Megami Tensei. The fanbase, while not being quite as broken as Final Fantasy's, is still fairly fractured. First you have the elitists, who only like the older games in the series; it's hard to say where exactly the line divides, though it's either at Persona 2, or Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne. Then there's the P3&P4 fanboys/fangirls, who are crazy about those 2 titles, but won't accept anything else, including the previous Persona games. And then there's certain other groups that aren't limited to just P3&P4, but still only like one of the subseries; this can range anywhere from the mainline series, to Persona as a whole, or any of the others (Especially the Ibunroku vs the main series who feels the series has become a case of being shameless fanservice). Of course, it's always possible to just like all or most of the series in it's entirety, but there's less common ground for that than you might think.
And then there are the ones who fight over whether Persona 3 or 4 was better. This also has elements of Subbing versus Dubbing, as one of the common criticisms of Persona 4's story is that you could figure out Adachi was the murderer because he shares the same VA as Yuu Narukami, the Main Character. While this theory could work in the dub, as both are voiced by Johnny Yong Bosch, the original game had Yuu being voiced by Daisuke Namikawa and Adachi by Mitsuaki Madono, making said theory have no value.
Dragon Age is an utter minefield at the moment, with the release of Dragon Age II splitting the fanbase down the middle; one side believes that the changes in Dragon Age 2 opened up the game to more people, improved combat and gave them a main character they can relate to. The other side believes that the game traded away all its depth and complexity to lure in more players and turned faithful fans into haters, doubly offensive because Dragon Age was previously held as the Spiritual Successor of the classic Baldur's Gate. Some of the more die-hard fans have gone so far as to declare that Mass Effect 3 is the 'last chance' for BioWare to redeem themselves in their eyes.
And boy, did the ending of that game go down well...
Oh boy, the Total War franchise. Although all the fans agree that the battles have consistently got better and better, the changes to the turn-based strategy portion of the game have caused all amounts of Flame. The first main group are those who feel Shogun and Medieval are by far the best, and in their eyes Rome spoilt it all by fixing something they thought wasn't broken by changing the simple Risk style strategy map into something that was more Civilisation in feel and had far too much tedious micromanagement. Then on the opposite side are those who think Rome and Medieval 2 are the pinnacle of strategy gaming. And then there's that old, dying core; to them, it's Shogun and nothing else. Of course, the time period that tickles your fancy the most is a major factor.
One half praises Empire for finally making guns effective in battle and the polish in graphics. The other rips the game apart for supposedly being buggy and the naval battles' clunkiness. The new patch has fixed the former, pretty much.
In another part of the TW community the broken base is about the battles rather than the strategy map. The divide is between the newer RTS gamers, who like the faster-paced battles, and the older wargamers, who think the speed makes realistic tactical manoeuvring impossible and serves only to mask a crippled A.I.
The Europa Universalis fandom tends to be a bit... testy over #3. Some like the more free-form approach and lack of "strait-jacketing" historical events. Others think that removed the very thing that made the games different. Most agree that #3 is still a decent game (at least after two expansions)
There are two fanbases of the long-running Need for Speed series. The first one preferred the series when the focus was on exotic, quarter-million-dollar sports cars and semi-realistic, down-to-Earth road racing (most notably Porsche Unleashed and Hot Pursuit fans), and that it Jumped the Shark in the Underground era when it started focusing on "rice burners." The other prefers the sporty compact tuner cars, arcade-style gameplay, and Narm Charm-filled storylines that characterized the series post-Underground.
Tomb Raider.There are the purists who refuse to play any games past Tomb Raider III, the Core Design lovers who will point out the tiniest flaws in Crystal Dynamics' games and say that they "can't match the style of the classic T Rs", even though Core's six games were all wildly different in style and Crystal's games are more like the original than most of Core's later games. Then there are the Crystal Dynamics fans. Some don't complain and just shut up and be grateful for what they're getting, with the occasional Take That at Core's later games in the series. Then there are the ones who Take That about every aspect of Core games to a degree that matches the Crystal Dynamics fandom.
And we can expect this to spike again now the Crystal Dynamics (along with Square-Enix) have had their plans to fully redesign Lara and the Universe blown wide open. Silly Game Informer◊.
There's also the fact almost every character outside of Scorpion and Sub-Zero is HEAVILY polarizing. And new characters are almost always hated by default.
The Reboot is a prime example, you either Hate it or Love it.
Speaking of Mortal Kombat and Reboot, poor Sindel's fandom shatters after a certain point of the story, where she brutally murders the majority of heroes in the fashion of Cutscene Power to the Max, one camp thinking she has fallen so bad she became the new most hated character ever while another does take account to how she's Brainwashed and Crazy, having no control of her actions, as well as her Arcade Ending where it's revealed that her noble side was still there before the brainwashing kicks in.
The Sonic the Hedgehog series is usually divided into three distinct eras which are each defined by distinct characteristics of the series "main" games; the classic era (1991-1998, Sonic The Hedgehog to Sonic R), the Adventure era (1998-2005, Sonic Adventure to Shadow the Hedgehog) and the modern era (2005-present, Sonic Rush to the present day). Certain fans of the classic era dislikes everything from the Adventure era and onwards, while certain fans of the Adventure era dislikes the games of the modern era.
As shown with Sonic the Hedgehog 4 and Sonic Colors, two games specifically designed to pander to old school fans, even the slightest mention that the game deviates from the original formula, for good or ill, or that it has a flaw, be it real or imaginary, or even if Sonic doesn't have the "right" voice actor is enough to send fans into a flame war. This essay attempts to explain the reasons behind it.
Bear in mind though, even game critics tend to be split over whether any given game is any good (For STH4, while half the haters complained about minor details such as Sonic's eye color, the other half complained about actual problems such as that controls were awkward, particularly for inertia and momentum).
Now that the announcement of the second episode has come, you have fans cheering that the addition of Tails and two-player co-op is a move most wanted and it'll add a lot of gameplay replay value, or fans complaining that it's just a crappy throw-in just to cover up the problems that it'll bring over from the first episode. (Even after they stated that the physics were getting fixed this time around.)
If they start to bitch about Sonic 4 and Dimps, mention Sonic Advance series. SAME COMPANIES INVOLVED
Want to know how broken the Fan Dumb can get? An interview from Word Of God himself said that he would like to redesign the gameplay from the ground up, or create a new "standard" of Sonic gameplay. Cue fans whining about a "NEW SA 3," "GO BACK TO 2D," and others flaming both sides saying that the Rush/Unleashed style gameplay is good enough. Mind you, this is only a interview, it doesn't have any concrete information.
The (English) voice acting is also split into three distinct groups. Some will say Ryan Drummond was the perfect VA with just the right amount of emotion and energy. Some will say Jason Griffith was better as he had a calm and mature voice. And then some will say that Roger Craig Smith is the best VA with a perfect mix of mature and emotion. Yet if you bring any of this up, people will counter with Ryan being too high (and for giving Sonic a voice), Jason being too emotionless (and the fact that the games had gotten worse when he appeared), and Roger being too deep. No wonder there is a fourth group that just wants Sonic to be mute!
There is, in fact, a small group who want Jaleel White, who voiced Sonic in the 90scartoons, to return as the voice actor for the video games (despite him having never done so). To these guys, no one can hope to compare to White. White, on the other hand, remains a Sonic fan to this day and appreciates everyone who's voiced Sonic after him.
With Super Smash Bros. Brawl confirming Sonic as a playable character, the idea of Jason Griffith voicing Sonic did cause Sonic fans to rage up at Nintendo using Jason over Ryan. Even Nintendo is not immune to Sonic voice actor arguments.
Bringing up Sonic being in Brawl at all in some circles can lead to unpleasant results, mostly from the Sonic Hate Dumb itself reasoning with things about him in Brawl and outside of it on why he shouldn't have gotten in, such as the info above and below.
Do you like Sonic '06? Do you try to defend it? Be ready for FLAME ATTACK! Bonus if you mention Sonic Generations has more glitches than Sonic 2006, and BOTH ARE ANNIVERSARY GAMES!
Ladies and gentlemen... Sonic Adventure 3 already happened and is called Sonic Heroes. No, it is literally Sonic Adventure 3. Take Sonic Adventure 2, add two more Original Teams, allow you to change characters mid stage and you have Sonic Adventure 3. Funny how they never noticed...
In fact, there are some who think it should have stopped at Tales of Destiny and operate by a strict "Tales of Destiny ONLY!" rule. The remake is the only one after Tales of Destiny that is allowed. Everything else? Junk. Even Tales of Symphonia.
You should not get involved in any official forums. You will be sentenced to death by Team Destiny fanboys if you admit to liking anything made by Team Symphonia or anything else. Never mind anything either accomplish. And Team Symphonia fanboys are a little better, considering that they're the only ones who are actually allowed to like anything made by Team Melfes or Team Destiny.
At least the whole fandom has the same opinion about one thing - Tales of the Tempest just isn't a good game.
It's somewhat comparable to The Elder Scrolls or Final Fantasy fandom, except unlike the former, you actually find people who like more than one game without having to squeeze through a bunch of purists.
The Final Fantasy flame wars. My God, the Final Fantasy flame wars.
The dividing lines can be boiled down to "Pre-Final Fantasy VI", "Final Fantasy VII", and "Final Fantasy X" camps. Other games' supporters tend to band together with one of these primary camps. Do well to know which camp is predominant in your area; talking about how great you imagine Sephiroth to be when you're on a forum filled with oldschool players is a good way of getting yourself mercilessly mauled. And the violent arguments within the Final Fantasy VII fandom alone are enough to cow a small island nation.
Final Fantasy VII: Was the Compilation a good idea or not? Just about the only thing not up to debate here is that Dirge of Cerberus didn't play very well.
In camp one, you have "Sephiroth is the best Final Fantasy villain ever!" and in camp 2: "Sephiroth's an overrated Bishōnen mama's boy adored only by squeeing fangirls, and Kefka's way more evil and entertaining to watch!" Ready? FIGHT!
There's even debate over whether the flower girl's name is Aeris or Aerith.
Careful saying you like Final Fantasy VIII. Lot of real cranks for that one. Many of them people who had never played a Final Fantasy game before VII and were sorely upset because VIII wasn't a sequel, and they've never forgiven it for that.
Final Fantasy IX, naturally, created a huge rift between the people who thought it was a good tribute to the old classical pre-VI games with its more lighthearted and idealistic themes and colourful world, and those who thought the FF series was, is, and should always be intended for more mature audiences, and saw IX as a big step backwards.
You should also be careful about saying you like Final Fantasy X-2. If you say it too loud in a public place where people can hear you, you'll get torn apart between the people who want to drag off with you and talk about how great the game was, and the ones who simply want to tear you apart for liking it.
Final Fantasy XI fans pretty much have two lines of thought: Either Red Mages need to be able to self-skillchain for 2 trillion damage while casting Meteor instantly while gangraping the 50 mobs around them, or that Red Mage is horribly, horribly broken, and needs to either be hit with the nerfbat or never updated at all, ever. The arguments have gotten so old most people go "Red Mages? Again?" and promptly ignore the thread.
Another point of contention is meleeburn-style parties. Either meleeburns are the best thing that ever happened to the game and an elegant solution to the problems of Level Grinding and DPSer oversupply, or they're a cancer on the game that precludes people's training in basic tactics, excludes some jobs and perverts others, and has caused the seek function to be conquered by "Stop Having Fun" Guys.
Good news, everyone! People are already fighting about whether Final Fantasy Versus XIII will be better than Final Fantasy XIII, or vice-versa. Some valid arguments come up about the difference in play styles. Unfortunately, most debates end up becoming Fan Dumb bilge concerning the plots: "Versus has a character with predominantly black clothing, therefore we all have to assume that the plot will be more emo crap like with Cloud lawl" or "FF13 is more colorful than Versus, so its obvious that 13's story will be kiddie anime crap while Versus will have a darker deeper story". The most anybody knows about either plot at this point is that a) crystals are magical, b) a government/corporation will be involved, and c) a group of ragtag warriors with superpowers (controlled by the player) will interfere. Which are pretty much the basic elements of every Final Fantasy game.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Square Enix presents: Final Fantasy XIII, which is, probably, the greatest Broken Base ever made. This goes beyond Fan Dumb yelling it's utterly ruined: every single gameplay element apart from the graphics (mind you, the setting is often a Base Breaker itself) is either praised to ungodly levels or is causing cataclysmic shitstorms, depending on who you ask. Hell, it even split the professional reviewers to previously unseen levels.
There are two types of Final Fantasy Tactics Advance fans. One side believes that Marche was right to undo the existence of Ivalice, so that his friends would face life (the Aesop of the game). The other believes that, through doing this, Marche is a mass murderer, like Hitler times a million.
The entire Tactics franchise is a Broken Base because the first game and the Advance games are so radically different in tone despite consisting of the same gameplay elements. Either Tactics Advance was good or it was a bane on all existence.
Every Final Fantasy sequel plays quite a bit differently than all previous games in the series, much more than most other video game series. So it is easy to see how fans could have a They Changed It, Now It Sucks attitude towards the games in the series that aren't their favorite. You would think the fans would have realized this by now and toned down their vitriol, but I suppose this is the Internet...
There's also the fact they started to use less and less medieval High Fantasy settings and more Punk Punk type settings.
It's best not to start a discussion on race and the characters. Asking whether Cloud or Tifa are Asian or not causes major backdraft in particular.
Who can forget the Broken Base between people who think Final Fantasy XII's battle system was a right direction for innovation versus people crying for tradition?
And, of course, which system made Final Fantasy popular to begin with, and why did the game go to a certain platform.
Square made tidal waves when they announced Final Fantasy VII for the Playstation. Given that the series got its core heyday on Nintendo's platforms, it was sort of a shock. However, this was somewhat averted due to there being a legitimate reason. Nintendo decided to go cartridge based for the Nintendo64, which didn't have the space and resources needed for what Square wanted to do at the time, so they went with the CD-based Playstation.
However, this paled in comparison to what happened in 2008 when Square announced that they were bringing Final Fantasy XIII to the Xbox 360. This was due to a variety of reasons, but what divided many was because it was thought of that Square was looking for more of a cash grab. This, though, turned FF fans against each other because of the Console Wars. There was room to complain, though, due to the controversial ways that Microsoft was accused of in being able to grab games that would've otherwise been exclusive to the Playstation 3.
The Super Smash Bros base has broken completely over Brawl, starting with the complaints of a core group of "Stop Having Fun" Guys, leading to reactionism lumping anybody with an interest in Tournament Play as Stop Having Fun Guys, with those people in turn getting pissed at the opposition for classifying them as such fanatics when they simply like the duel-based competitive modes of play, and in turn taking it out on the casuals who are in it for the randomness of mascot fighting, and so on in a never-ending cycle of hatred and Internet Backdraft, with everyone being pushed to one of the extremes. It's like some cosmic chemist is trying to distill this previously strong and understanding fighting game community into pure Scrubs and Stop Having Fun Guys. To make things nastier, Brawl enables Internet play and random games, which mean that you won't always be able to play with people who are on your side of the debate.
Even through the Melee years there was definitely conflict within the base over use items, use of Final Destination, use of the c-stick, use of exploits in the physics engine... and of course, Character Tiers.
Additionally, there's always conflict due to the fact that people see characters as they appear to act like through the Smash Bros. series, mostly because they don't have the patience enough to actually play the games they originated from. This leads to horrible fanfics, endless screaming, and uncouth bashing of culturism, gender, dominant language, and sexuality. This mainly happens with the Fire Emblem characters, predictably, as the fans usually praise Earthbound and Mother 3 from on high, and their usual molds for Pit's personality were more or less made canon with Kid Icarus: Uprising. Though, of course, there ARE the incredibly rare morons who believe that Samus is male, or that Sonic is a dickish troll.
Resident Evil 4 had this problem after its release. Some fans see it as a crowning achievement of video games (regardless of the franchise or video game sub-genre). While dissenters feel that this was a turn for the worst, and prefer the old Survival Horror/ammo-rationing gameplay over the more frantic, relentless, action-oriented gameplay of RE 4. And let's not even mention the storyline, and the badass revamp of Leon which is a whole other can of worms.
Resident Evil 4 got this BEFORE its release as well thanks to preview info and rumors. Complaints boiled down to:
The early description of the story, about people being "in a trance like state" worried some fans. Others thought it was interesting.
Leon being the lead instead of Chris got a lot of mixed opinions.
And when the game actually got released, some people complained about the controls while others were ok with it.
People were also underwhelmed by the amount (or lack thereof) of B.O.W's. There were definitely a lot of divisions over El Gigante, some saying he was a LOTR reject.
There were a few who thought Capcom should have stuck with the "Hookman" version because of how bone chilling it was, despite being supernatural-ish. Others thought this would be too different of a departure (whether or not that's ironic is also up for debate).
Resident Evil 5 has a lot of people who enjoyed it and a lot of people who think that it's the worst thing ever. Not many consider it their favorite in the franchise, though.
Then there's a group of people who still misses the zombies.
The complaints are especially jarring when you consider that the main complaint about the RE series before RE 4 was that it had gotten too repetitive.
Two different groups of fans complaining about two different things, hence the Broken Base. Basically the ones who complained about the repetitiveness are the ones who hate RE4, RE5 and even RE: Code Veronica because of the whole action over horror approach. This group hated the repetitiveness but didn't necessarily want RE to abandon the whole survivor horror aspect in favor of action. The other group got bored with the survivor horror aspect and welcomed the more action-oriented approach.
Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City started it all over again...with fans saying "YAAAY the zombies are back"... oh wait, it's still action oriented.
People were surprised and happy by the returning zombies and B.O.W.'s but then they found out it was being developed by the same people who made SOCOM. Then things became... polarizing...again.
Then, when the game came out, people became split on whether it was a great game with some minor bugs, or almost completely broken.
Who had the better missions — USS Wolfpack, or the American Spec-Ops team Echo-Six? The people who like the latter were surprised at how much better the missions were compared to the original protagonists.
What part of the game, if any, should be canon?
According to the developers, none. The entire game was made with the question "What if..."
It's only a matter of time before this happens to Resident Evil 6.
Fans (and critics) seem to be split on whether or not Resident Evil 6 is an ambitiously good yet flawed game or a complete uneven disaster.
Some fans believe Resident Evil Revelations was the last "true" RE game. It does have better reviews on average compared to part 6 which was another polarizing game not just fandom wise but critically.
IGN claims that polarizing reviews of Rsident Evil is pretty much par for the course for the franchise now.
NetHack fans are often divided on whether or not the use of alternate graphic-tile sets, instead of the default ASCII, "improves" or "ruins" the game.
It's not a big issue, because you have the freedom to choose your preference and it makes no real difference the how the game is played. The legitimacy of tactics like pudding farming are more debatable.
The gameplay is the same, but you have to be a lot more 'careful' with the ASCII; one of the more infamous examples is that dwarf kings (puny) and mindflayers (deadly) both appear as a lower-case purple 'h'.
A fanbase that's already plagued by FanHaters, the fans of the Mega Man Battle Network franchise, is pretty damn broken. The only games you should really risk saying you like are two and three. You can only like the first Battle Network if you swear an oath saying that you only like it because it lead into number two and three. If you dare like Battle Network 4, then prepare for a lot of flame wars from the "Purists" who only like the first three games and "Battle network fags" who like them all. After 3, the series was ruined.
Which is quite a shame since they're plagued by Mega Man "Purists" who insist that the series should not have had more than the first three games.
There's also a lot of hate for Mega Man Star Force, the sequel series for Battle Network, for various reasons, from the character designs to the gameplay to complaining about how the main character is "whiny", in contrast to the cheerful Lan.
The Monkey Island series. Whilst everyone has a favorite, it is generally agreed that the first two games are the classics and the third is great. However, the fourth game in the series, Escape From Monkey Island divides people but as the years have gone on, has gathered quite a fanbase, but is generally not liked by the fans of the first three games. The series revival, Tales of Monkey Island has been greeted with acclaim by many, despite many hating it for the same reasons they hated Escape. Things get even deeper by it being a five episode series; some hate certain episodes and like others, although it is commonly said that the last three episodes are much better than the first two. This is mainly because the developers took feedback from fans and changed aspects of the later games accordingly.
A subset of Halo fans is bitterly, bitterly at arms over the differences between Halo, Halo 2, and Halo 3.
Some complaints centered around the fact that they gave the Elites English dialog, destroying their eerie and creepy mystique, and physically transformed them from sleek and lanky to big and bulky. Some liked the change, while others didn't. There are fans who also find it ridiculous that 80% of the Halo story isn't in the game but in tie-in merchandising.
The Elites will be "scary" again (in terms of non-human languages) in Reach (cf. developer interview).
Halo Wars is starting to get this. People seem to be at odds over continuity.
Don't forget the people who think the Pistol was perfect in the first game, and the people who think the first group should just suck it up and use the Battle Rifle, which is "pretty much" the same thing.
Whether or not ODST is worth 60 bones.
How about Matchmaking? When Halo 2 tried it for the first time, the gaming community was split between those who liked the ease of being placed in a game with a certain ruleset and those who wanted full control of what server they wanted to play without having to rely on building a friend's list for custom games.
Halo: Reach wasn't even out yet at the time, and there were already people upset that the leaked photos still looked aesthetically the same as the other Halos, while other fans are ok with that. Although it could be argued that its absurd to believe that Bungie would change the art style of the games so drastically.
People generally agree that the multiplayer is solid. But when it comes to the campaign, people are vehemently split. Some don't like it for varying reasons, some for gameplay, others say They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot. It's mostly the latter though. Apparently it didn't live up to its premise and wasn't as epic, dark, gritty and emotional as they thought it would be (some saying there was zero tension and dramatic weight in the game, considering the circumstances). Also possibly due to the fact it contradicts the Expanded Universe. Then there's Noble Team itself, with most only liking Jorge, Emile, and maybe Kat.
Honestly, almost every campaign after Halo:CE is polarizing.
Armor abilities, especially the invincibility-granting Armor Lock, are very polarizing to Reach's MP player base. Some players defend Armor Lock as something that requires a lot of skill to use effectively, while detractors consider it a broken game mechanic that allows players to easily cheat death when they would otherwise not be able to.
Matters have not improved with 343 Industries' takeover of the Halo franchise. Their first order of business was a title update for Reach, changing a number of elements of gameplay that were clamored for by the community. Cue the vitriolic war between those in favour of the TU updates and those who say Reach was fine from day one.
Halo 4 might be one of the most controversial of the games yet, due to it having perhaps the most changes introduced in a Halo game yet. On the one hand, there's people who like how it's going so far. On the other, there are people who hate that it kept anything from Reach, most notably Armor Abilities (jetpack, surprisingly, at the top of the list) and bloom. On a third hand are people who want it to be exactly like Halo 2 or Halo 3, with simply more weapons and vehicles.
One of the most controversial and base-breaking features is the new custom loadouts and armor-mods. Before they were fully unveiled, someone said they were a bit similar to perks from Call of Duty. This went about as well as expected with the loyalist Halo fans, who raged endlessly. Even now that they've been revealed and named, they are still referred to (in bitter tones) as "perks", even though the differences have been shown to be significant.
Further complicating things is the "competitive vs. casual" argument. Basically, competitive fans accuse everyone else of being "casual players" (a derogatory term, the way they use it), and, in most cases, assert that casuals have no say in what should be in the next Halo, because "if it's competitive it will please everyone". They often have valid arguments, but most simply lose credibility by raging.
343 Industries itself causes this. There are many rabid anti-343 Industries fans, who feel that Halo as a series is ruined by the changes to story that they've made.
The campaign (minus the Cortana drama) seemed hollow and flat to some, both story and gameplay wise. There's also the UNSC Infinity which is a Cool Ship that doesn't do much of anything.
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask was either the best or worst thing to happen to the franchise. Some places, it is quietly ignored as a "side story" that "doesn't count" (mostly on timeline forums). While other places it is hailed as the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Likewise for The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker. Most of the fanbase appreciated the change in tone and milieu, but another portion decries its lack of difficulty (as if any Zelda besides the first and second were ever difficult) and/or its Lighter and Softer tone, especially in regards to graphics. The warp songs in the game have also not stopped critics of the Wind Waker from complaining about how long the sailing sequences take.
Let us not forget the demographic of people who think ANY 3D Zelda game is crap and think the series turned for the worst after A Link to the Past.
And now, The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword seems to be further splitting The Wind Waker VS Twilight Princess split base into three. Half the fans love it for taking the franchise in a new direction and defying series conventions, half despite it for... taking the franchise in a new direction and defying series conventions. And Fi.
A Wii U remake of 'Wind Waker is announced. Half the fanbase goes "yay", half goes "this game sucks, do Majora's Mask instead".
And then, there are those who enjoy all the games, despite being different from one another.
In the case of plenty of online competitive games, there's usually a schism with regards various minor glitches and exploits — do they make for unfair play, or are they another skill to be learned? Does using a bunnyhop or an alias constitute cheating?
The Metroid series is very well known for its great single player... until Metroid Prime: Hunters boasted about its online multiplayer. Many reviews praised the multiplayer, but bashed the single player for being short and boring. Of course, this divided up the Metroid fans in two groups; people who supported the new direction of multiplayer and people who hated the new change and claimed Metroid was ruined. Metroid Prime 3: Corruption had rumors about online and of course the divided fans broke into a Flame War over it and kept the fire going once it was revealed that the online was only to send Friend Vouchers to your friends and the game wouldn't have multiplayer.
To this day, you'll have some people who will keep spewing ideas for a multiplayer Metroid game while others will say that the game doesn't need it.
Also, some die hard Metroid fans insist that the series return to its 2D roots since, you know, anything in 3D sucks.
Or maybe, you know, just because it was a different game experience? It is actually possible to love the Prime Trilogy AND the 2D games. And wanting both.
The main issue with Prime 2 and Prime 3 from some segments of the Metroid fanbase, however, was more to do with a perceived slide from first person 3d conversion of the Metroid gameplay to generic FPS.
Ironically, FPS fans criticized it for having an unconventional control scheme, while it's defenders pointed out that it's still an adventure game, just played from first-person.
The remaining fanbase has divided even further since the announcement of Other M and that it was being produced by Team Ninja. It's only gotten worse since.
Other M may have dealt the greatest blow to the fanbase so far, not so much due to its different style of gameplay (though there is definitely some brokenness over that), but because of Samus's characterization. In particular, the Ridley scene and her relationship with Adam seem to have caused half the Internet to spontaneously combust.
Another division among the Metroid Fanbase involved both Other M and the Prime series: Thanks to an alleged interview with Sakamoto, some fans are split as to whether the Prime series should still be counted as canon or not.
Even the fans who dislike Other M cannot agree; some believe that the game's poor sales mean that Nintendo will go back to the original formula for the series, while others darkly predict another decade without Metroid.
The whole issue of Metroid's broken base can be summed up with this video.
Half-Life 2 Episodes - Are they an utter failure with how long it's taking to get each game, or are they worth the wait and the fans are just whiny and unappreciative of Portal, Left 4 Dead 2, or Team Fortress 2's free updates? Both, because it takes time to make a game, but the angry fans are justified in that the episodes are a failure since the idea of "Episodic Gameplay" is to not keep the people waiting 2 years for the next installment.
Also, while it's generally agreed by people as a whole that Adrian Shephard was a cool protagonist and nice counterpart to Gordon Freeman, and many would like to bring him back in future installments (Valve has even stated that they're interested in maybe bringing Adrian back one day), the more pro Half-Life 2 forums (who generally like the Half-Life 2 series better than the Half-Life 1 series), go into massive fits of rage whenever Adrian's name is even casually mentioned on one of their forums, and many of the anti-Shephard fanboys generally now try to attempt to distance the Half-Life series from Opposing Force, saying it's not canon, simply because of Shephard (and with no reason why they even hate Shephard in the first place), even though Valve has stated that the Gearbox expansions are cannon unless proven otherwise. People who are even only mildly casual fans of Opposing Force and Shephard generally get so many hate complaints that it's laughable, while more open forums generally have a more positive opinion on Shephard and Opposing Force.
Ever since Team Fortress 2 was released, there have been arguments about the classes and which is the strongest. Nothing wrong with that, it happens in all games. Fittingly, it was only after Valve released the Pyro's update that the flame wars started - the fanbase split between "Feels the changes were needed for the Pyro to become competitive" and "Feels the changes made the Pyro overpowered".
Even better, the update contained a second change to the Soldier class, splitting the base into "Feels the Soldier change was unnecessary and a bad idea" and "Feels the change was a good idea because the Soldier was too powerful". That's one update creating four separate camps.
A relatively early (considering how old the game is now) change was Valve forcibly removing the ability to set Friendly Fire, a staple choice in pretty much every online FPS. Those who disliked it generally hated the way it took away a perfectly legitimate server choice, overpowered some classes (like Demoman and Soldier, who didn't have to worry about hurting friends) and gave a big giant nerf to the Spy (because it turned spy detection from something that took a modicum of skill and attention, and turned it into "shoot every player you see no matter what".)
Currently, the base seems to be split into "The Demoman is way too overpowered" and "people are just getting good at playing Demoman." This one looks set to run and run, given that Demoman is now the only class with those "fiddly little bastards", grenades.
As with all FP Ss that reach its age, the game now has a raging divide on what constitutes valid tactics on popular maps (namely 2Fort, a CTF map that's effectively the games de_Dust2). Many involve everyone's favorite base-breaker: the Demoman. This is especially true in regards to where it's legitimate to plant stickybombs: to many players, planting them outside spawn point doors, under health kits, and around blind corners are all acts of camping, while others will argue that it's the intended purpose of the weapon.
Special mention goes to a Medic/Heavy duo holing up in the enemy team's hayroom (where the door from the primary spawn point is) and camping freshly respawned players. While racking up high scores and legitimately stalling a huge chunk of the opposing team, some players feel it's a dirty tactic and will declare a win empty if they got it by spawn-camping. In some cases, Medics who disagree with the tactic will leave their Heavy to die if he tries to camp the spawn for a long while.
Right now the fanbase is divided into "The Scout Update was good and gave the Scout a necessary buff" and "The Scout Update has failed.". Especially with the Sandman's stunning ability.
Pretty much every update results in huge They Changed It, Now It Sucks flamewars. And don't forget the "everyone gets grenades/only Demoman gets grenades" people, the "cartoony style is awesome/cartoony style sucks rocks" people and the Team Fortress ClassicThey Changed It, Now It Sucks people who all but refuse to admit a sequel exists.
Due to Valve's decision to remove items received through "idling" with an external application, and giving people who didn't use the program halos, Broken Base is more of a reality than ever. The result? The people who got their items removed attack the people who have halos out of envy and the ones who have halos attack the ones without them because of that. Within 24 hours of the announcements, there already were servers that only accepted people who wore halos, and servers who only accepted people who didn't. Many blame Valve for this move, and splitting the community, while some put the blame on the idlers for putting them in that mess in the first place. A perfect example for this page.
While the halo debacle has died down, there is still a huge division over in-game idling. Valve has given the okay to servers where you just stand in a box and wait for random drops, but topics on the Steam forums are bound to attract people on either end to argue over whether or not it should be allowed.
And now with the release of TF2 for the Mac, who have the Earbuds. Which have pretty much immediately become a sequel to the whole Halo debacle.
Now we have the Mann Co. Store, which allows you to purchase in-game items with real money. The store is entirely optional and almost all of the items can still be found or crafted normally. The base is split between those who don't care about the store because they can still get the items for free anyway, and those who think that Valve sold out completely and that the addition of this store is a deplorable and amoral business practice worthy of the Devil himself.
Now you can get TF2 free and play forever. It's been half a day and people are already screaming "TOO MANY NOOBS!" and arguing why did they have to pay when others didn't. Etc.
This has quickly exploded, with two main camps that formed almost immediately. One side believes that Free-2-Play was a good idea, increasing traffic to the game and making it more widely known. The other side argues that the hordes of new players make the game virtually unplayable, as a certain amount of expertise (or at least a general concept of teamwork) is required throughout a team for anybody to have a good experience.
There are still parts of the fanbase complaining about the addition of hats, despite them being cosmetic. There's a similar part of the fanbase complaining about item sets; a combination of weapons/headwear that gives you a bonus when all are worn. Except only four of the sets give a bonus, and at least one of those is too low to matter.
Anytime a new weapon is released. The fanbase would be splintered between "it's broken, NERF NAO", "It's hard to use, LEARN 2 PLAY" and every other shade of grey in between. It doesn't help that even if the weapon is genuinely overpowered and gets a nerf, the fanbase inverts itself and people start calling for buffs for the weapon, sometimes even by the same person. And let's not get started on the whole "crutch" and "skill" weapons...
Left 4 Dead fans have broken themselves once Valve announced a sequel stated to be released at the end of 2009, exactly one year after the first game was released. The fans are basically organized into camps of those who are excited over a sequel so soon, those who are pissed that Left 4 Dead didn't get anything like the post-release support that Team Fortress 2 is still getting for free, and those who are wondering when Half-Life 2: Episode 3 is going to come out. The second camp even started a Steam group dedicated to boycotting Left 4 Dead 2, which gained more than 35,000 members and garnered some attention from places like IGN and The Escapist (of Yahtzee fame).
Naturally, fans have started to whine about everything in Left 4 Dead 2. Complaints range from the characters being dull compared to the original cast to how the melee weapons and the new special infected ruined everything. On the other side, people in support of the sequel say the environments are more varied, there are more weapons to use, and how the survivors have more personality than the old set. Just try to compare both Left 4 Dead games without fans in both camps coming together to tear each other apart.
The release of the DLC, The Sacrifice, has taken what's left of the broken base and shattered into smaller pieces; fans are complaining that Valve is intentionally trying to kill off Left 4 Dead 1 by making its DLC available to Left 4 Dead 2 and porting over a campaign from the first game to the second.
The smaller pieces are now even smaller once Valve announced that they are going to release all of maps from the first game into the second. Reactions were predictable.
The same ports divided the fans to even smaller fragments since the ported campaigns have been adjusted slightly to meet the standards of the gameplay for Left 4 Dead 2. People either love the changes or hate them and demand Valve to keep the maps as they were without any changes. Some have even suggested a "Left 4 Dead Classic" mode where the ported maps are basically as how they ran in the original game.
Didn't think it was possible to divide the Left 4 Dead fan base even further? Think again. Just try to bring up the topic of not seeing your legs in left 4 Dead 2 or how the survivors there don't have a rag doll effect when they die.
Mega Man 9 has clearly destroyed what's left of the bonding between Mega Man fans. As the game is 8-bit, many fans regard it as the most revolutionary game of all time, while others think of it as betrayal.
Simply going to a 9 video and commenting negatively will garner the wrath or joy of other fans.
The ultimate counterpoint to anyone who criticizes any aspect of 9's visual style is that they must be a n00b gamer who only cares about pretty graphics and explosions. Even if you suggest an old-school Mega Man game that simply has higher-resolution 2D graphics, this will still happen. In fact, your complaint doesn't even have to be graphics-related at all.
There are also arguments over the spinoff games like Battle Network and Legends straying too far from the original games. Despite the fact that there are STILL games being made to cater to the ones that love the classic gameplay, the "true fans" will cling to the NES titles while others embrace the diversity and variety, sometimes saying they are better than the old games.
The announcement of a crossover game between Battle Network and Star Force reignited that flame war awfully fast.
Castlevania, to an extent. With Koji "IGA" Igarashi in control of the series, some fans feel that IGA (which some purists like to spell out as "eeguh") has ruined the series, as it means nothing but Metroidvanias and little variety for the remainder of the series. To some, more Metroidvanias means more of the same game, just with a different map each time. Others though, would rather not talk about the "Classicvania" era and the Nintendo Hard titles that defined the series up to Symphony of the Night.
Dawn of Sorrow and Portrait of Ruin have damaged the unity of the fanbase even further with anime-style artwork, which is in sharp contrast to the more Western artwork of titles like Symphony of the Night and Aria of Sorrow (never mind that the original Rondo Of Blood had anime-style art and nobody complained). Some like the anime-style artwork, others think it's ruining the series' image. (Order of Ecclesia drops the style.)
And prepare to see even more brokenness in the base, thanks to Castlevania Judgment. On top of being a freakin' Castlevania fighting game, its characters bear striking resemblances to Death Note's, mainly because they are being designed by Takeshi Obata, the artist of Death Note.
Here comes Castlevania: Lords of Shadow, a Dolled-Up Installment, headed by Overseen by Hideo Kojima (IGA not in sight) and developed by Mercury Steam (AKA, the same guys who made the Love It or Hate ItClive Barkers Jericho). Patrick Stewart doesn't save this game from arguments over the arguably generic art style, and the people who don't want a "Godofvania".
The Ace Attorney series. Some regard Apollo Justice as a good game with great characters who just need another game to develop better and a strong, self-contained plot without the filler that the Ace Attorneysequels were getting bogged down by. Others trash Apollo for having next to no old characters, Phoenix having turned from the titular Ace Attorney into a hobo (albeit a freakishly crafty hobo), Apollo's universally-panned objection, pseudo-Time Travel in the fourth case, the main villain's motives, and regard the plot to be substandard compared to previous entries.
And now that Ace Attorney 5 has been announced, with Phoenix as the main character who seems to have snapped back to his lawyer-self, Maya (who would be 27/28 by GS 5 anyway) no longer being the assistant, with psychologist-lawyer Athena Cykes filling her shoes, the new 3D graphics, and being on 3DS, things are looking to get even more broken then they are now. That said, the fact that Apollo Justice is returning alleviated the shaft somewhat.
But then we have the issue of the game being released overseas...through digital means only. Some don't care, some are disappointed but are hyped enough for the game to get it anyway, and the extreme camp wants to boycott the game entirely due to this.
Fans are also divided over whether the second game was good or not. And many, just about the third case of the second game.
Similarly, the spinoff Ace Attorney Investigations divides the fans between those who love it for offering a fresh perspective on the series and those who feel it's not up to the standard of the main series. Particular points of criticism are the lack of Trial Sequences (Incredibly jarring since you are playing as a Lawyer - Prosecutor Miles Edgeworth) and the uneven writing.
MMORPG players are notorious for this. Every time there's a patch update, someone is bound to complain that their favorite class has been cut down while another is ridiculously overpowered.
The use of items from Microtransactions. Some believe they're just another challenge that true pros can overcome or a crutch they can do without, others denounce them for destroying the Metagame and a third camp holds that a player doesn't deserve to play at all if he or she can't afford to cash up.
City of Heroes fans generally have four changes that are points of contention for the fanbase: the suppression of travel powers after using a hostile power, the Global Defense Reduction and Enhancement Diversification (generally lumped into one change of "making characters weaker"), the addition of player vs. player combat, and the removal/modificatio of rewards to discourage farming in Architect missions. To this day, there are people who are subscribed and paying purely to start crap on these changes.
In World of Warcraft, the complaining of some Horde players reached epic proportions when Blood Elves were added to their race list. While some just shrugged and said it'd be nice to have some new blood on their side, a very large group of people feel that it would ruin their faction of ugly monsters. Four years, and two new races later and there's still a dividing line between Blood Elf fans and those who despise them, despite or because of, the fact that Blood Elves make up 50% or more of the player population on almost all servers.
The second expansion is sure to make things worse due to drastic changes in nearly every field (especially raids). Some people welcome the changes (if not completely), others contest them on the ground that they are dumbing down the game.
The Warcraft fandom finally splintered into people who accept the MMO and people who don't when WoW's first expansion changed the backstory to allow new playable races (see Retcon for more information).
Especially since Cataclysm, a new Internet Backdraft has emerged over the direction of the overall lore in regards to factional bias, real or perceived. In particular, a large number of Alliance-side players have complained that many of the new quests in the old-world zones come across as incomplete or rushed for the sake of Christmas release schedules, in comparison to seemingly better-written Horde-side quests in the same zones. Less nuanced debate has arisen over perceptions that Blizzard has biased the lore towards Horde-side victories with the Alliance as punching-bag mooks, and has shifted up a gear with rumours of a major and cherished Alliance stronghold being destroyed by the Horde in the lead up to the Mists of Pandaria expansion. Horde-side players have countered with arguments that the Alliance held the cards in the original game.
Meanwhile horde players think that they're constantly getting turned into the bad guys, especially in The Wrath of the Lich King onward. Many horde players originally signed up because Thrall (along with Vol'Jin and Cairne) was a Reasonable Authority Figure who wasn't out for constant conflict - rather like the leaders on the Alliance side, but with a different cultural feel and an almost anti-hero attitude to the Alliance's shiny cape. When Blizzard had Thrall become a world guardian and leave the horde in the control of the warmongering Garrosh, much complaining ensued that the horde had become villainous and the anti-hero appeal of playing horde had been lost. It's reached the point where the outcry from the horde players forced Blizzard to scrap their planned character development for Garrosh and make him a villain in an upcoming expansion.
The update that added the Ulduar instance and changed a lot of gameplay elements created a huge backdraft over, of all things... fishing. Players are now able to fish anywhere, not just where they have a high enough fishing skill level. Skill level now only affects the likelihood that you will catch junk versus fish. Plenty of threads erupted over how this now nerfs fishing and how no longer requiring players to spend hours and hours skilling up fishing completely ruined that part of gameplay.
A large break in the World of Warcraft fanbase is actually a split between the expansions: Those who think World of Warcraft was best before the expansions, those who think World of Warcraft was best during The Burning Crusade, and those who think it's best in Wrath of the Lich King. Each group is constantly at each others' throats, and many foresee a fourth group rising up when Cataclysm comes out.
In fact, the announcement of Mists of Pandaria has caused an even bigger online ruckus, to the point where accusations that it's completely ruined are common. People either say that the Pandaren being the first neutral race will add interesting content and that Pandaria looks amazing, or that the new expansion is a kiddy Kung Fu Panda rippoff.
The biggest break in the World of Warcraft base seems to be between casual players who don't really care about character optimization and just want to run the storylines, and hardcore players who could care less about the storyline as long as they have the best gear and are ultimately optimized killing machines.
There's now another huge argument coming up about raid difficulty in the next expansion, Cataclysm. Currently, there are two options for every raid - 10 man and 25 man. 25 man is harder, requires more coordination, better gear and more skill, but gives better loot. Cataclysm changes this - 10 and 25 man raids will now give the same quality loot, but 25 man simply gives more of it. This, of course, has left "hardcore" players furious, claiming that the game will become "too easy", while casual players are happy that they no longer have to spend 5-6 hours in 25 man raids to get the best loot.
And even bigger break is the argument that Heroic dungeons are too hard. Casual players cite that there's too much time required to be invested for little to no rewards, while hardcore players basically tell them "qq l2play" and to just do regular dungeons.
Cataclysm's PvP is also spawning another "Casual vs. Hardcore" argument. Currently, battle grounds, which are battles that go anywhere from 10v10 (Warsong Gulch) to 40v40 (Alterac Valley) only reward two-season-old gear, two pieces of current season gear, and no weapons. In order to get the newest loot and weapons, you have to play in the Arenas, which are 2v2, 3v3 or 5v5 fights with no goal other than "kill the other team" and earn a specific "rating" by winning more than you lose. This is, of course, extremely competitive and arguably much harder than battlegrounds. Cataclysm will reward the best PvP loot and weapons from Battlegrounds, meaning Arenas will become entirely optional. This has spawned a serious debate among PvP players, with one side arguing that Arena isn't true PvP and welcomes the change, while the other side deems battlegrounds too easy and thinks that the best gear should come from Arena.
PvP weapons in themselves are a big debate. In Burning Crusade, players were able to buy old PvP weapons from Battlegrounds. In Wrath of the Lich King, they removed this option. This leaves many players feeling very cheated. The only way to obtain PvP weapons is to do very well in Arenas, but how can players do well in arenas if they don't have weapons to use? This has split PvP players, again, into two different groups: "PvP weapons should only be obtained in Arenas, B Gs are too easy" and "Well how am I supposed to earn Arena weapons if I don't have something to start with?"
In fact, PvP vs. PvE has spawned fanbase splits since the game started. Some players consider fighting scripted boss encounters boring, while others consider fighting other players boring. It all comes down to personal preference, but that doesn't stop World of Warcraft players from arguing over it.
"Class X is imba/needs a buff", especially pre-TBC Shaman vs. Paladin. Back in the day, you could go to any class forum and see a thread discussing whether or not a class needs a patch to balance them, whether or not said patch completely broke the balance or not, whether or not shamans are the most absurdly powerful class in any game ever - or whether or not Paladins are actually much superior, whether or not making both classes available to both factions is a good idea to balancing both factions or completely ruins the uniqueness, whether or not rogues and/or hunters and/or warlocks (and/or any other class really) are way too strong/weak, whether or not Blood Elves should get the warrior class like everyone else, whether or not gnomes should get priests, whether or not the pre-TBC Fear Ward available for Dwarf Priests defeats the entire point of raid encounters (Blizzard stopped giving Fear to bosses in the expansions) - or really ANYTHING!
If you include Warcraft's RTS fandom, you'll find those who believe everything after Warcraft III is garbage along with those who believe everything after Warcraft II is garbage. The argument against Warcraft III is that the Orks went from a blood thirty race of bad-asses to a bunch of Noble Savages who turned out to be the victims of a demonic army. High Elves became jerks (they were ALWAYS jerks, Alleria Windrunner being the biggest $#%$^ to ever appear in the Warcraft series, the archer/rangers only slightly less), Goblins went from Horde suicide bomber to neutrals, navies disappeared, heroes became undying super units with unique abilities and an inventory slot, and the overall focus of the game shifted from larger armies to comparatively small ones. Proponents of Warcraft III, by contrast, prefer its tighter, more personal story, the surprisingly complexity of its RPG like flare, its superior map tools, the much better unit variety, the addition of hostile creeps, and the introduction of two noticeably different factions.
As one of the older MMORPGs around today, Everquest is full of this kind of stuff. In the early days, EQ 1 was very newbie-unfriendly. No tutorials, no easy armor quests, and if you wanted to run from one end of the continent to the other, you had to... well, run from one end of the continent to the other. And if you wanted to take a boat to the other continent, you waited for the boat. In short, the game was Nintendo Hard and everyone hated it. Over the years, the game has been made easier in the lower levels, and now you can get gear for your level 10 character that's better than the gear you had to do quests to get for your level 40 character. As for travelling, now there is the "Plane of Knowledge", from which you can get to pretty much any zone in the entire game that you'd want to go to. And people hate this too.
Guild Wars has a very noticeable split that is seemingly supported by the producers: PvP vs PvE. In the attempts to balance PvP, a skill or class will be Nerfed. This also affects the PvE iterations of the skill/class, which throws this half of the fanbase into outrage. "Why are you changing things for me that weren't broken for me?"
Oh, lawdy, GW has tons of cracks. Now with the PvE update split, it's not "They're nerfing us because of PvP!", it's "Why does PvP get all the updates?" And then there's incredible contention over which campaign is best - there're the Proph purists (usually the "let's-lynch-Izzy" crowd), the rare Factions fan, and the Proph-is-slow-let's-go-play-Nightfall people (usually the "shut up about the skill updates, let's enjoy the game and leave A Net alone" crowd). Then there's the horrific debate over PvP skills and consumables ("They broke the game!" "No they just made it more fun!" "Dude guys chill!" "Ur mom!"). Lastly, though this isn't so pronounced, there's the huge gap between the overly vocal, Izzy-fandom, HM- or Guild Battle-elitist (depending on PvE or PvP), PvX-despising, title-fandom, A Net-loathing (or loving, in a few rare cases), anti-Eot N, GW 2-skeptical, Proph-addicted, (sometimes hypocritical) guildie-group-only, "GW is dying!" doom-and-gloom Guild Wars Guru types and the silent, Izzy-tolerating, PvE- or Arena/AB/HA-enjoying (though sometimes elitist, especially in HA), meta-following, title-greedy, A Net-ambivalent (or accepting), pro-Eot N, GW 2-excited (or skeptical), NF-loving, PU Gging or H/Hing, "GW is fine but they just nerfed my build!" average Joe players.
EVE Online is notorious for whipping up epic whine-fests after every patch or content upgrade. Most notorious was the 'Speed Nerf' added in December 2008, which, depending on who you ask, either eliminated small-gang PvP in favor of server melting 'blob vs. blob' combat, or else saved the entire game from a Failure Cascade. Which camp you're in seems to depend on whether or not you have a billion or more tied up in your super fast fandom and implants to make it Gofasta, or whether or not you are Caldari.
Kingdom of Loathing seemed to suffer from this after the NS13 update rolled out. The fandom split between those who thought the new, longer and rebalanced game was the best thing since sliced bread, and those who hated the nerfs and felt the slower game was less fun.
To make things worse, another such division arose around the same time over the development of KoLMafia, an unofficial but legal open-source bot/client for the game. Some felt the two lead developers on the project were being oppressive about the development of the program and how it would be adapted to NS13, calling anybody who disagreed not a true proponent of open source, and others reacted by calling the first group was a bunch of ingrates with a sense of entitlement. Both sides being equally tactless, the flame wars raged for about three weeks.
Star Wars Galaxies. Bring up the words "Combat Upgrade" or "New Game Enhancements" and watch the sparks fly. The former (and even most of the current) playerbase seem (relatively) united in agreeing that the game's glory days are behind it, but asking when and why is an excellent way to start a violent flame war.
The Unreal series fans since Unreal Tournament III. The OMGTHECOMMUNITYISDYING-UT3 fans and the old-school Unreal/Unreal Tournament fans who want to boost the fanbase. This Broken Base was set in the moment that Unreal Tournament was released, and established a gulf between the MP and SP side of the franchise, and every time a new game is released, more breaks are going to happen.
Grand Theft Auto IV was built on a new game engine, revamping many of the core gameplay aspects at the cost of some of the features in San Andreas. Once Hype Backlash set in, one side began insisting that all the fun had been removed from the game while the other side maintained that planes really wouldn't have that much of a point in Liberty City. Being reminded that San Andreas was the third installment of its generation and more features would be added to the system through downloadable content and the sequels hasn't cooled matters down.
To specify: The first topic is mostly between those who ROM-hack translate Fire Emblem Jugdral and enjoy it for its incredibly deep plot and entertaining gameplay, and those who give all their praise to Fire Emblem Tellius because it was the newest one, as well as them playing it because Ike was in it. The second point of argument is usually a battle of those who enjoy a work unaltered by "family-friendly editing", against those who say translating is tantamount to pirating games and thinking that the games that didn't make it overseas had to have sucked. The third reason for flaming was more or less set off by horribly researchedFanon that portrayed Marth as a vain pretty boy, Roy as a Pyro Maniac, and Ike as a thick-headed moron; leading to the Fire Emblem fans calling the Smash Bros. players a truckload of crazies, and the Smash Bros. fans calling the Fire Emblem fans a bunch of brainless cultists who don't know what "real games" are, and proceed to stuff Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts down their throats. The fourth point is basically Save ScummingMunchkins against "casual gamers". And the last point...Earrgh...Fire Emblem is teeming with males and females, both ally and enemy, that have potential for relationships with other people, coupled with them turned into a GAME MECHANIC called "Support" in some games, and "Bond" in others. Crack Pairings aside, most pairings are just as legitimate as others, but a la Final Fantasy VII, NO ONE will agree completely on opinions. This also pairs up with the Save Scumming VS Casual flaming, because FE4 actually made pairing couples up a necessity to have good units in the second half of the game, but mostly those related to Levin. More explanation would probably cause Edit Warring.
Not to mention when Rare released the remake of Banjo-Tooie with the previously-scrapped Stop 'n' Swop feature intact. Some fans were satisfied, while the rest claim it wasn't really Stop 'n' Swop since the extra reward from it was just a Gamerpic and theme.
There's some bickering (to say the least) in the Metal Gear fandom over the increasingly Post-Modernist-shading on the plot and the wobbly 4th wall the games had acquired since Sons of Liberty. Some cite it as a brilliant way to hook the players into the stories and characters, while others think it's a clogging, incompressible mess that gets in the way of the actual game play - don't even go into the subject of Sons of Liberty's infamous Gainax Ending. And let's not even get started on the changes in the combat and stealth systems that each game had, usually with complaints "It's too easy" or "Come on, I don't have time to memorize all this junk!"
Some fans are also debating on the actual voice actress who played EVA (IE, whether she's Debi Mae West or Jodi Benson), since Suzetta Minet was suspected, and later confirmed thanks to David Hayter on IMDb, to be an alias for another actress. What's even more strange is that some fans still think that Debi Mae West is Suzetta Minet despite the fact that West stated in an in-house interview that she is not Suzetta Minet.
Thanks to Metal Gear Solid Peace Walker's release, some fans are debating whether Portable Ops was supposed to be counted as canon or not.
Thanks to some plot stuff from Guns of the Patriots, several fans have debated as to whether Liquid Ocelot was actually possessed by Liquid since the Tanker Chapter in Metal Gear Solid 2 or just started faking possession after Metal Gear Solid 2, and were fighting over Vamp's revelation of Nanomachines being the reason for his regenerative abilities.
There was initially some debate as to whether Kazuhira Miller had actually continued working with Cipher after Paz's betrayal or whether he quit Cipher as a result of Paz's revelation after a leaked phone call revealed that Kaz was in contact with Zero. Those for Miller remaining a Cipher agent pointed out that the tape was the closest thing to the standard Metal Gearpost-credits conversation, as well as Miller mentioning Angola in the call as one of the Militaires Sans Frontieres potential clients. However, those who think that Miller quit Cipher cited that in both the ending and the secret call, Miller mentioned that he only was involved in their plot because of the promise of expanding MSF (and in the case of the latter part, also had to state twice to Zero that he as only interested in the business angle, and was a neutral business partner with the strong implication that he won't continue to work with them should they attempt to ruin his business), as well as the fact that Miller doesn't even mention ZEKE other than the mention of the AI being validated, which was also mentioned earlier by Paz in her final diary tape. That, as well as the fact that he apologized to Big Boss for not warning him earlier with the implied admission that he was working with Cipher up to that point.
Street Fighter has a complicated issue here. When Street Fighter III came out, many of the fans fully entrenched in the series before that point hated the "parry" system, claiming it was a Game Breaker. Capcom worked out the kinks, eventually culminating in Street Fighter III: 3rd Strike. However, many "old-schoolers" still hate the whole idea of parries at all and won't play it seriously. Ironically, when Street Fighter IV finally came out, with no parries at all, Street Fighter III had its own bastion of "old-schoolers" who decried it for lacking that gameplay element.
Don't forget the Alpha (Zero in Japan) series fans who decry the other game's lack of air-blocking, and are themselves split between those who like Street Fighter Alpha 2 with it's shorter but easier to do custom combos and those who prefer Street Fighter Alpha 3 with it's harder to pull off but longer and V-ism custom combos (not to mention the differences between their Alpha counter systems).
Even more baffling is that EX wasn't even true 3D; it was 2˝D, with dynamic camera angles utilizing the third dimension only popping up during specific occasions, much like in SFIV. EX played like the old 2D titles (falling the closest to Alpha in terms of style), just with 3D-rendered models as opposed to sprites.
On top of this, there's a group of fans who are quick to point out that, for all the flak EX received from the majority of the fanbase (at the time, at least), it was a prototypical IV that came out a decade too early. Compare the EX games with (Super) SFIV and you'll begin to see a lot of aspects carried over from the former, movesets and gameplay mechanics especially. Makes you start to wonder why EX even got the short end of the stick from the fandom in the first place when it arguably provided the backbone for the game that revitalized 2D fighters.
Guilty Gear: Reload or Accent Core? Each game has its fanbase who say one is awesome and the other is terrible.
The Elder Scrolls fanbase is divided into multiple factions; those who think Morrowind is pure brilliance but consider Oblivion to be dumbed down for the "console 'tards" and Daggerfall to be a glitchy, repetitive mess, those who loved Daggerfall but think of Morrowind what the Morrowind fans think of Oblivion (and don't even get them started on Oblivion), those who like Oblivion but think Morrowind is clunky, ugly (more the setting than the graphics), and repetitive and probably don't even know Daggerfall exists, those enjoyed both Daggerfall and Morrowind but not Oblivion, the people who enjoyed Morrowind and Oblivion but either don't care for Daggerfall or never played it (possibly because it never came out on the Xbox), and about three people that think the whole series should have stopped with Arena. Say the wrong thing in the wrong section of the official forums and you'll quickly attract a lynch mob.
And then, there are the people that like all the Elder Scrolls games. Both of them.
Chrono Cross - Is it an excellent game that brings resolution to the events of Chrono Trigger in a fun and inventive way, or an existentialist piece of crap with too convoluted a plot, too many characters, and too many unanswered questions?
The cease-and-desist letter sent to the makers of the fan-game Crimson Echoes has also generated numerous cracks in the Chrono fanbase: Was Square right to defend their intellectual property by shutting down the game, or did they act too hasty to crush a nearly-completed work? Were the creators being practical and mature in complying with the letter, or are they cowards for not trying to find a way to put out the game?
There are two types of Tetris players: Those who play casually and will accept any kind of Tetris. And then you have those who play the Tetris The Grand Master series.
Mario Kart has this all over. There's the question of whether snaking ruins the game or just rewards the skillful. There's the question of bikes versus karts, which gives some people a headache to even be near. There's also arguments over given sets of tracks, particularly in the DS and Wii versions which bring back some of the old tracks. There are even arguments over how the items behave, and which way works best (should fake item boxes block attacks from behind? how should the blue shell work?). About the only thing that the fanbase can agree on is that The Computer Is a Cheating Bastard.
The agreement about the cheating computer has fallen apart, mostly between fans and "Stop Having Fun" Guys. Now it seems no one can agree upon whether the computer cheats or that you just really suck at the game.
Going way back, there is a small but vocal group of people who began with Super Mario Kart, the original game, and dislike how items have become a central game mechanic rather than a little addition to what was otherwise standard racing. They consider the series to have taken a nosedive with the second game and consider the only other good Mario Kart game as Super Circuit, which was a close cousin to the original game.
There are also arguments on whether or not exploiting glitches in some tracks that lets you jump ahead of everyone by 30+ seconds is legit or cheating.
Don't mention which character line up in each Mario Kart game is good or not unless you want to get roasted by the fans. Just mentioning the baby Mario Bros. or baby princesses will cite flames over whether or not those characters are cool or a waste of space. Metal Mario falls under the same case.
Super Robot Wars. Either you like the OG characters, or hate them like plague, and diss the OG series and its fans.
And even more amongst the OG characters, you either like the Masou Kishin characters, or think they're waste of spaces that take spotlight from the actual OG characters.
Fallout has this. Fallout 3 was produced by a separate company which, rather than producing an RPG, produced an action RPG. Fans of the Fallout franchise were split over the fact that the "sequel" wasn't a sequel in the sense of "being the same sort of game," as well as certain continuity errors and "dumbed down" mechanical elements. While supporters of the game countered with calling the opposition fandumb and They Changed It, Now It Sucks.
Fallout New Vegas had this impact, albeit not as great. Older Fallout fans liked the game for being more like the original games in terms of story, setting, and other elements, while some fans of Fallout 3 have decried it as a simple expansion pack, and one that isn't enough like Fallout 3
Fallout 3 had an even louder three-way split over Fawkes' gender, or whether he had a gender at all. This might've died down when the voice actor for the character weighed in during an interview, but it didn't until true Word Of God said, "Hey, it's a guy. Who would've thought otherwise?"
Fallout had a broken base before Bethesda got it in their hands. To some, Fallout Tactics is the 'non-Fallout'. To others it was a game with fun features, and though it missed the heart of what made the others enjoyable, there was a salvageable baby in that canonical bathwater.
To be completely honest, Fallout 2 was probably the first game that split the Fallout fanbase. Some fans appreciated the increased size and gameplay changes, others were annoyed by the difference in tone and numerous pop-culture references. It's just that most Fallout and Fallout 2 fans have buried the hatchet and unified over the years in their combined hatred of the other games in the series.
Fallout might be one of the few games that made a broken base with it's first game. Fallout is the SpiritualSuccessor to Wasteland. Some of the fans of Wasteland refuse to acknowledge the existence of Fallout.
As the more extreme and vocal isolate themselves, the base looks a lot less broken. Developers and critics may get their ears boxed from time to time, for the most part the unpleaseable stick to a forum that's so inciteable it's irresistible bait to Trolls.
Arguments over Lyra having replaced Kris in the Gold and Silver remakes, HeartGold and SoulSilver.
The overlap between Pokémon fans and furries is causing a growing divide in itself.
Super Smash Bros. Brawl caused a fairly nasty uproar for awhile between Pokémon fans over the cut of Mewtwo and his 'replacement' with Lucario. For several months after Brawl's release, Mewtwo fans and Lucario fans had an extended Flame War. One side claimed that the replacement was 'concrete proof' of Lucario being 'superior' to Mewtwo, while the other side made remarks about Mewtwo's in game stats and movie powers. Plenty of rather violent and/or squickyhate art was created before everything calmed down.
Pick a Pokémon sidegame. Any Pokémon sidegame, but especially any that was made after the 90s.
We might have one brewing between people who'd like to see some sort of noticeably distinct change to the plot mechanism and/or battle mechanics (it doesn't help that Masuda said that he thinks that sufficiently new ideas ought to go in a completely distinct series) and those who think you shouldn't fix what isn't broken. Suffice to say that in the former camp, the keeping-to-the-old looks like embracing weardown from age...
These issues don't even begin to describe the Arceus vs. Mew debate. Some fans argue that, in canon, Mew is the original ancestor of all Pokémon (as it contains the DNA of all Pokémon), while other fans put Arceus at the top of the pinnacle as the absolute progenitor of all Pokémon (as its mythos describes it creating the universe itself).
Some theories describe Arceus being used by Mew (who in turn, gave birth to Mewtwo and created Arceus by her hands) to create all other 646 Pokémon. Middle ground much?
Some go the opposite way and say that Arceus created Mew first, and then used her/it to create every other Pokémon, or all other Pokémon developed from Mew via Darwinian evolution; another compromise, though there are some who disagree with this too, of course.
It's worth noting that the games themselves only ever state that Arceus is believed to have created the universe (and nowhere does it say anything about having created any other Pokémon besides the Spacetime and Lake Trios), and that Mew is believed to be the ancestor of all Pokémon by scientists who have studied its DNA. So in reality, most Mew vs. Arceus debates are founded on assumptions and generalizations.
Normally, the "fans" who complain when a new generation comes out are the ones who complained when the previous generation came out, and all complaints about said previous gen are instantly forgotten. note This can be called the "Zelda Cycle", which is also very prominent in that series' fanbase.
The moment Pokémon Black 2 and White 2 were announced, some fans complained that we're getting a direct sequel, even though this had never happened before in the main series. When Black Kyurem and White Kyurem were revealed, some fans complained that Pokémon has resorted to Fusion Dance. This is at the point where there is no public knowledge of the games other than their titles and that the Kyurem forms are in them. That being said, the ones complaining are most often the ones who already dislike Pokemon Black And White to begin with, so there's no additional breaking of the base here.
The revelation that the Striaton Trio isn't the Shadow Triad really rustled up the fanbase. Many felt it was a last minute cop out with the hints toward it in the previous game, the random scene where the two groups meet, and the concept art showing the Triad's hair looking surprisingly like the brothers.
Many fans were also upset about the revelation of N's full backstory. Some were also find the climax underwhelming compared to the previous games or were disappointed that N didn't really have as much impact on the plot as one might expect.
There is a deep division over whether using Action Replay / Game Shark is okay or not. One faction loves getting everything possible out of the games, even if it takes cheat codes, while the other views anything not possible in game as it was designed as tantamount to a terrible crime.
Then there's the divide between competitive gamers and casual gamers. It isn't as bad as it seems as most competitive gamers also play casually, and the vast majority of people on both sides just kinda wanna have fun playing the game their own way, but there's enough dicks on either side (competitive gamers who are insistent that it makes them smarter to play the game this way, and casual gamers who treat competitive gamers as though they're abusing real animals instead of game data and then hypocritically scorn competitive gamers for taking the game 'too seriously' as though wanting to know deeply about something makes it impossible to enjoy it) to make it a touchy subject at times.
Within competitive gaming: should you raise the Pokémon yourself (an extremely time-intensive process that also guarantees minimal team variability) or just plug in your choices to a battle emulator? What counts as 'cheap'? Are rain teams broken?
In a different direction, the fanbase for Pokémon had already been broken right from Day 1. Fans of the video games, of the anime, and of the Trading Card Game are largely separate. Chances are if someone says they're a fan of Pokémon, they're only a fan of one of the above and range between a passing interest to vile disgust at the other two.
The use of legendaries in-game is also something of a divider. They're already relegated to the Uber tier in competitive battling, and banned in battle frontiers/subways/towers/whatever, but players still disagree over whether it's okay to use legendaries during the storyline to make it easier or if it just makes it way too easy. Then of course there's player vs player wireless play outside the Smogon rules, where some will use them and some won't.
Stealth Rock, a controversial Gen IV attack which entire teams are built around surviving. Some say it shouldn't be allowed, claiming that it's cheap and makes a lot of Pokémon virtually useless. Others say it should, claiming that there are enough ways around it and those Pokémon were too powerful or too common anyway.
Another break happened when Pokémon X and Y were announced. Half the fans were rejoicing and half the fans were like "TROLLFREAK, Y U NO MAKE RUBY AND SAPPHIRE REMAKES???"
Added to that is the split over whether making the new gen a 3DS game was good, or whether it made it out of reach for fans who can't afford a new console atm.
And of course, still more design wars are cropping up over the Gen VI starters, just like all the gens.
Mewtwo's Awakened/Eclair Forme. Is it something to spice up an old favorite, or disrespectful to peoples' childhoods? And what is it with the tail on its head?
Silent Hill seems to suffer another fracture in its base with every sequel. Although Silent Hill 2 garnered critical and fan acclaim, Silent Hill 3 was immediately hated by a subset of fans and declared a shark jumping moment, due partly to all the Epileptic Trees its storyline Jossed. Then Silent Hill 4 came out and it almost instantly became The Scrappy of the series, although Critical Backlash set in and a number of fans began to complain that the fans complaining were only complaining because it's a different experience. Once Konami exported the series to outside development teams, starting with Silent Hill Origins and moving on to Silent Hill Homecoming, the fanbase split again, between fans saying that the latest games have lost the atmosphere and rely on formula, and other fans saying that the fans complaining are culturally biased against the western developers and that the formula is just Silent Hill's style.
The Silent Hill fandom is basically divided into two camps: those who embrace the old games and hate the new ones, and those who like the new ones, but must encourage you to like them in their own way. There are some fans who fall into a smaller third group, who prefer individual games rather than judging the entire series in exactly one way, but those are the major two groups present in the fandom, from what I've seen. If you like the newer games, you're a traitor to the old fans. If you like the newer games, you're still not in the clear. Apparently, it's not enough to compliment the new games. You have to compliment them IN THE RIGHT WAY (meaning to idolize whatever game that person adores and ignore the others, or worse; i.e. bash them).
Speaking of the Silent Hill 2 fandom — which can indeed be extremely scary — never, EVER mention Pyramid Head and those rape scenes, unless you want to be verbally hung, drawn and quartered very, very quickly. Whilst it's pretty much agreed that he's not actually 'raping' monsters in the literal sense (and is now only really used as a running gag), the fans still seem to be split into two parties: one side argues (from what can be gathered) that he is merely molesting/sexually abusing other creatures, but that this is meant to portray rape in a symbolic sense; the other side insists that his actions hold absolutely no sexual connotations at all, and that he is simply being a jerk and tormenting them. But DO NOT form an opinion from any of this. Remember: Never. Mention.
On a similar topic to the above, don't mention the possibility that Angela was raped. Ever. You'll get jumped by veteran forum members who drone on about how no hard evidence points to it, and that the dialogue that confirms this was altered from the original Japanese script.
Also, don't even discuss the overall quality of Silent Hill 3. There is no winning the debate when the other party won't shut up about how Silent Hill 1 didn't need a direct sequel, writing 3 off as entirely unnecessary. The only thing that isn't up for debate is that 3 refined the series control scheme, making it the best and most fluid of the older games.
Weirdly enough before Shattered Memories came out it garnered far more hate than AFTER it came out, but maybe that was due to it being explicitly non canon... or at least until you get into the people who find a way to work in Silent Hill 1 into connection of the game versus those who believe it entirely solo.
There is a very small minority of Legacy of Kain fans who refuse to acknowledge that the games beyond Blood Omen are canon.
Day of Defeat - well, there's weaponsmod, which some find intuitive and fun, whilst others complain it makes class selection irrelevant. There's the war about whether or not firing through thin walls is fair play, and let's not get started on those who play the game as a tense, realistic deathmatch, and those who strictly play as part of their team.
The Crash Bandicoot fandom. There are the fans who refuse to acknowledge any of the games not made by Naughty Dog and hate the later games, the fans who embrace the series as a whole, and those who only like the newer games and constantly hate on the Naughty Dog games. Elements of this breaking include the nomadic change of developers, change of characterization (Crash no longer being a Heroic Mime, but a Taz expy), and the general decline in quality.
Spyro the Dragon is even worse. Any of the games made after the original Insomniac trilogy is guaranteed to start a Flame War because again, general decline in quality. Sierra, however, took it Up to Eleven by rebooting the series with The Legend of Spyro, which has a combo-based fighting system, different characters (apart from Spyro, Sparx and Hunter), a surfer-dude voice for Sparx, and an art style comparable to The Lord of the Rings, complete with Spyro being voiced by Elijah Wood.
Mention Cynder and you'll either be reduced to a pile of cinders yourself, or hugged.
The series received a second reboot with Skylanders, which has broken the fanbase even further.
Counter-Strike has a rather fractured fanbase that is impossible to please. There are those who think that Beta 7, 1.3 and 1.5 were the best. That's not counting Condition Zero which is almost identical to 1.6. But just as things were starting to settle down, the Source re-make comes out and further splits the community, mainly between the competitive and more casual players. Don't even visit the forums when an patch comes out because there WILL be something that has completely ruined the game according to some players.
Crystal Shards? I would have thought it starts with Dream Land 3 — compared to Super Star before it, dissenters might point to its simpler crayon-like graphics, fewer copy abilities without multiple attack commands, helpers replaced with Gooey and the animal friends, and so on.
Nintendo fans in general have broken themselves once the Wii came along. First, people wanted new and original games (such as No More Heroes and Madworld), but either no one buys the titles, causing the fans to slam people for not supporting an original title, or they find something to nit pick about the games' flaws. Then we got fans that want remakes of old classics and when they finally got one in the form of Punch Out Wii, fans then cry that it's just a $50 NES game remake. Never a lot of request boiled down to take Wii boxing and add puzzle elements, they got more than what the asked for. The controls themselves. People wanted more classic controller/Gamecube controller support since the Wii was nothing but waggle fests. They got it and now they whine there's not enough motion controls and the purpose of the Wii is defeated. Not to mention many complaints about "waggle" are more from people unwilling to learn new controls rather than with flaws in the game's controls.
Before that there was Gamecube. You either think that it was a wonderful but under appreciated console or it was one of Nintendo's biggest mistakes. Supporters defend by pointing out the amount of ignored good exclusives while detractors criticize how different those exclusives are from their Nintendo 64 counterparts.
The Wii U broke the Nintendo fan base even further when it was shown to have a tablet-like controller. Fans either like the new controls or hate it for being too much like an ipad.
The Thief series also has this, to a certain extent. The most prevalent bone of contention regards how Thief: Deadly Shadows stacks up against Thief: The Dark Project and Thief II: The Metal Age. Some feel that Deadly Shadows carries the torch of the series, and others think that it was a mistake (and others still who haven't played the first two games anyway). God knows what Thief IV will bring...
And then there is the very classic split between the horror/undead/supernatural Dark Project faction and the mechanical/human-oriented Metal Age faction. In this latter split, you have TDP-fans who love the creepy atmosphere of the first game, the dark (pun not intended) plot, the terrifying critters and mid-to-late game levels, and think that TMA lacked atmosphere and was generally unpolished - to the point where some state that Thief II was noticeably rushed due to the then-impending demise of Looking Glass Studios. On the other hand, the Metal Agers think that the levels in TMA were better designed (with the mid game levels are amongst the best in the series), that the plot was more nuanced than the first game and featured a fantastically mad bad guy, and that the undead/creature levels took away from the pure thievery segments. At the end of the day, however, it basically boils down to one group preferring Hammer Haunts and Burricks, and the other preferring security bots and mechanical Cherubs.
UB Funkeys is a child's game with many adult players. Amusingly, only the adults have childish arguments over the game - but boy, do they EVER. The first series was the best, the Chat Funkeys are ruining everything, how dare they add so much new furniture, every new Funkey is ruining the series forever, all the designs are either too weird or too generic, and so on and so forth. The fandom is most notably divided over the Nightmare Rift and Dream State additions; either adding alternate dimensions wherein small isolated species have developed and been contained against their will (thus explaining why we never saw them before) is a brilliant concept or a complete and total asspull depending on who you're talking to. (And the voice acting is either so overdramatic it's hysterical or so badly done it's cringe inducing depending on which character and what player you're talking to.)
Whether Visual Novels can be considered a game at all, or just a 'book on the PC' sparked some debate. Good luck when the subject of Ecchi is used as ammo.
.hack message boards are usually very peaceful... until you make a poll "Project .hack (The World R:1) vs. .hack Conglomerate (The World R:2)". Then BANG - flame war.
Various aspects of 358/2 Days have done this to the Kingdom Hearts fandom. Especially Xion, whom you either hate to death or like her very much and think it's a pity that she died.
This goes as far back as Kingdom Hearts II, actually. Most people can agree that the gameplay changes were for the better, but forget about having a civil discussion over Organization XIII. This is in part thanks to the Yaoi Fangirls who ignore all canon characterization to justify pairing them up, but a lot of people simply think they took too much focus away from the main trio. So, what are they? A classic example of a Spotlight-Stealing Squad? A sign that the original plot is forgotten and, thus, ruined forever? You'll get very different answers, depending on where you are and who you're asking.
3D has essentially shattered what remained of the fanbase thanks to revelations like Nobodies being able to grow hearts over time, the inclusion of time travel, and even Lea receiving a Keyblade. Never mind that Nomura has stated that III will only be the Grand Finale of the Xehanort Saga; the story will continue on for an unforeseeable time into the future. Claims of Franchise Zombie run rampant. In fact, the amount of games it's taking the series to get to IIInote as of 3D, we're at four; by comparison, II was released back in 2005 and only featured one game between it and the original is a point of contention.
Oh, hell. LucasArts may have made a "canonical" alignment and gender for Revan and Exile, but bringing the topic of either up is still a great way to get a Mythbusters-style kaboom.
You can also look at the reaction to Star Wars: The Old Republic being an MMORPG here. Tons of fans are mad about the next KotOR being an MMO set 300 years after the last game instead of a direct sequel to KotOR II.
And while the majority of those upset about Star Wars: The Old Republic being an MMO have mostly sighed and given up complaining, it wouldn't be an MMORPG without a forum filled with people complaining about game balance, lack of focus on PvP, too much focus on PvP, Game Mechanics, and a host of game-specific issues like Space Combat, Species choices, and swimming. Did we mention the game wasn't even out of closed beta yet?
Backyard Sports. There are the people who thought the games were lost when the pros came in. Others thought of them as an improvement, and thought everything after online play was ended sucked. Then came the redesigning of the kids, changing to 3D, removing and adding characters...the series is left with no fanbase now.
The Breath of Fire fandom generally got along pretty well...and then Dragon Quarter came out, with the fanbase firmly divided between those who loved it and those who hated it with the passion of a thousand suns (even refusing to acknowledge it as being in the series).
And seeing as the Breath of Fire franchise hasn't had a new game out since 2005, the Holy Warring has only gotten worse—because a sizable portion of the fandom sees Dragon Quarter as a Franchise Killer.
Seeing as pretty much most of the rumours and discussion of a possible revival of the franchise has centered around Breath of Fire IV, even Capcom seems to want to stay the hell out of this.
Rather odd...considering nowadays everyone says Breath of Fire IV killed the series and will admittedly dry-hump Dragon Quarter, even though you still see the dissidents who liked IV.
Call of Duty, one group thinks any thing past #2 sucks, a second thinks anything before #4 sucks. Debates also rage over whether the ones made by Treyarch suck or not and even on what direction the series' setting should go.
Basically, every time there is a sequel in the series, the fan base divides itself over whether or not the new game is better than the previous. At first, the sequel is viewed as better, but then becomes hated, and people go back to the previous game. Another sequel comes out, and it happens all over again.
Modern Warfare 2 had a rather large split after the announcements that there would be no dedicated servers for PC, multiplayer matches would be limited to 9v9, it would be priced at $60, digital copies for PC would be released AFTER physical copies were sold, and some games were banned for not being released from the correct sources. Basically trying as hard as possible to make PC players hate the game.
And yet it still sold like crazy. Funny how it works, isn't it?
The Super Mario Bros. fanbase is... well, where do we start. They're not as viciously defensive as some of the other examples on this page, but each fan has a different opinion on which games are the best and the worst, and some petty arguments will pop up if two fans with different tastes collide.
Or those who hate Mario Galaxy 2 as just a clone of the original game with the exact same storyline and newer levels.
More recently, Sean Malstrom inadvertently brought into the woodwork the old-school 2-D platforming Mario fans who derogatorily call 3-D Mario games "Starfinders" in that this is all Mario does in those games against the 3-D platforming Mario fans who argue that finding flagpoles is all 2-D Mario does. When New Super Mario Bros. sold like hotcakes, Nintendo became aware of this divide.
Gears of War fandom is broken due to the morally ambiguous description of the C.O.G. in the extended universe. Particularly the tie in novel Aspho Fields.
Then there's the nerfing of the shotty.
And now the news that the Gears 3 story will be written by Karen Traviss. Reaction is split between "OMG TEH MOAST AWESOEM STORY EVAR!!!!1!1!!!1" and "Dear God, Epic! Why have you forsaken us? FOOLS!!! YOU'VE DOOMED US ALL!!!"
The Lunar fanbase becomes more and more of this as each day passes. It started with Lunar Legend, the Gameboy Advance remake of the first game. It changed a few scenarios and its translation was more true to the original Japanese version, cue rage. And now that Silver Star Harmony is coming out it's gotten even worse. What with the new sprite style, the editing of the world map, the new opening... wars are active even as we speak.
Supreme Commander fans are split on wether the many gameplay and cosmetic changes in the sequel streamline the experience and make it more enjoyable or utterly gutted it of everything that made it worthwhile and unique. Major points of contention are the simplified economy and the research system, although the weaker graphics and smaller unit selection are also frequently brought up.
More points include that the game uses Steam, with most anti-Steam threads complaining about updates and such, that it was published by Square Enix (apparently they were responsible for the improving/neutering of the game, that Gas Powered Games developed the Xbox 360 version in-house instead of outsourcing it like last time, supposedly dumbing down the game, etc.
The Civilization fandom seems to be split into at least 3 groups: those who like Civilization 2, those who like Civilization 3, and those who like Civilization 4.
Speaking of Civilization, the announcement that Steam will be mandatory in Civilization 5 really broke the base. Same goes for the simultaneous announcement about Downloadable Content.
Now that Civilization 5 is out, it's proven to be the greatest base-breaker in the history of the franchise and has dwarfed any and all previous division. Opinions range from it being genius that at worst needs some refinement which will come with patches and expansions, to it being an atrocity so at odds with what Civ is meant to be that it's almost fraudulent to give it the name Civilization and something that is beyond repair even with years of work.
Battle lines seem to be specifically drawn between Civ 4 fans and Civ 5 fans, because of the massive changes to many long standing and in some cases much loved game mechanics. Civ 4 fans generally believe They Changed It, Now It Sucks and say 5 is an attempt to dumb down the franchise for the masses. Civ 5 fans think the series had grown stale and too micromanagey by 4, and that 5 streamlined it for the better. The fact that Civ 5 was developed by the same team who did Civilization Revolution for consoles also injects a layer of PC vs. Console gamer to the fighting.
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six have broken bases as well, those who liked the newer games for being a fast pace tactical shooters while others hates it for being too action like and not tactically inclined
Mass Effect fans are divided over the changes made between the first game and second game: the loss of an inventory system, reduction in the number of powers, the removal of the Charm and Intimidate skills, the change in the way weapons worked (originally an overheat mechanic with infinite ammo, replaced by a "thermal clip" system which effectively adds an ammo mechanic), the Mako replaced by planet scanning, etc. And that's just game mechanics: the storyline is subject to this too.
For those unfamiliar with the game, ME1 was a classic hero's journey, the only subversion being that Shepard was already well-known in Alliance circles, no matter what origin you chose. ME2 went Darker and Edgier, with most of the plot consisting of building a team of specialists (with some being mercenaries, assassins and sociopaths) to take on a final, deadly mission. Depending on how you played 1, the plot of 2 could also have quite a few absurd moments.
On that same regard, how justified is the Virmire Survivor in distrusting Shepard for working for Cerberus?
The new default look for female Shepard, used for advertising the third game and appearing on the Collector's Edition, has turned the fandom into a battlefield. And it's still not as bad as it was when she was blond... because obviously, a blond Commander Shepardis naught but a Barbie clone.
The inclusion of multiplayer in Mass Effect 3, as well as combat that makes the second game's look slow-paced, has raised accusations that the franchise has become a Call of Duty clone. It would probably be less contentious if multiplayer was not required to get the best ending prior to the release of the Extended Cut DLC, which made it possible to get the best ending without playing multiplayer.
A small flame war erupted over the unveiling of Tali's face. One half admits that while Bioware was obviously lazy in just photoshopping a picture that was public domain they were overjoyed that Bioware finally gave them a look at what Tali looked like under the helmet and were sure they meant no harm. The other half wants to destroy Bioware for their lack of effort in unveiling her face and demanded a full character model just like every other character in the game.
The (original) ending of the third game became such a divisive Broken Basenote and one incredibly one sided (with only 2% who liked the original ending) in favor of those in opposition according to a poll on BioWare's official website. that BioWare pledged to release the Extended Cut DLC, which is its whole own can of worms.
Extended Cut DLC actually led to just another instance of this. There were two main issues of original ending: Lack of closure and the fact that ending is practically total nonsense (something about "protecting organics from making killer robots by making army of super killer robots which kills organics before they make killer robots. Problem solved.") The closure issue was definitely fixed in EC, however the nonsense issue was only slightly improved by the addition of some dialogue expanding on the nature of the choices and the person who gives them to you. This broken fanbase again to fraction that believe that ending is now satisfying and Bioware is redeemed and to the fraction which believes that "extending something bad is making it extended bad" and wishes Bioware to be sentenced for eternal suffering in HELL.
Romances are always a source of fan division, but a rivalry has arisen between fans of the Mass Effect 1 and 2 romances. Fans of the first game's romances are split between being angry over Ashley/Kaidan angrily refusing to join Shepard on Horizon and to a lesser extent, Liara being relatively cold and distant and being more understanding. The fans of the Mass Effect 2 romances will frequently say that the romances in the first game were relatively shallow in their eyes and that Ashley and Kaidan were "boring humans" at best or "bitchy", and at worst, "bitchy" and "racist" (Ashley) "useless" (Kaidan) and wrong about Shepard on Horizon, thus concluding that the romances in 2 (mainly Garrus and Tali note who debuted in the first game) are better. The debate got even more intense in the third game, in which, of the six romance options, only Garrus and Tali return to your party, of the remaining four, Thane dies, Jacob cheats on you and Miranda and Jack have reduced roles. This has led to fans of the Mass Effect 2 romances often complaining about how their pairings were pushed aside in favor of the old ones (specifically, Liara), especially considering that in the original ending, Liara would always be Shepard's last thought if you did not romance the Virmire Survivor. On the other hand, those who chose the Virmire Survivor were relatively upset in Mass Effect 2 that they didn't get any closure in that game while the romances in Mass Effect 2 were focused on and that the Lair of the Shadow Broker DLC offer the opportunity to reconnect with Liara and also pointed out that two of the three other love interest party members who returned in the third game were forced in your party with little help of the war gameplay wise other than being a party member. One thing these two groups usually agree upon though is that Liara gets the most focused out of all the love interests.
The gay option in Mass Effect 3 is controversial: while only a small part of the base were completely adverse to the subject, there is the question of whether or not someone who showed no previous inclination towards homosexuality would shift rather abruptly. This isn't helped by the fact that the relationship is with a new crew member as opposed to a previous one.
APB, like most MMO's, has an extremely split fanbase over EVERYTHING EVER. APB's fans haven't agreed on anything since the first day of closed beta.
One of the biggest arguments is Criminal versus Enforcer, which is the entire point of the game. Criminals get no special weapons, but Enforcers get what is called "LTL" or "Less than Lethal". Enforcers can shoot criminals with these LTL weapons to stun, then arrest them, which takes them out of the game longer than killing them. This, of course, caused an uproar of anger among criminal players, who have nothing to balance this with. Realtime Worlds, the game's developer, tries to claim that Criminals earn more money during missions, which balances the combat. Nobody takes this answer seriously.
Nerfing the N-TEC and OCA has been a raging battle since the game released. Both weapons are extremely overpowered, and because of this, the entire playerbase uses these weapons, entirely neglecting the wide selection of other weapons. There is not a serious player in the game that doesn't use either an N-TEC or OCA. Some people see this as totally okay and say that they would use those weapons, nerfed or not. The other people say that these weapons being so good is detrimental to the game, because nobody uses the other roughly dozen weapons.
In-game griefing has also been an issue that some players argue over. In-game, APB is entirely open world. All players run and drive around on the same streets - even during missions. However, this allows players, if they want, to ignore all missions, and simply drive around in big cars and blow up other player's cars while they are on missions. Half the game seems to think this is entirely okay, because "That's what an open-world game is for" while the other half thinks that they should just stop being assholes and play the game.
The announcement of Ace Combat Assault Horizon already is dividing the fandom, and there's only a teaser available.
There is a small but very dedicated and fanatical group of the Command & Conquer fandom who insist that the only real games were made before Westwood was bought out by EA Games. You are not allowed to like any game released after Red Alert 2 and are expected to declare war on EA.
To elaborate on the above - ever since EA took the license, fans have almost universally moaned and complained about the various changes, no matter how small. For example, Generals was criticized for having a Bottom Bar and using a traditional Worker system (yes really, they saw these as legitimate complaints). However, Generals did bring in a particular cult following in the C&C fanbase, and one that still persists up to this point in writing. One criticism leveled at Tiberian Wars was what amounts to research failure and woe betide anyone who liked the game's third faction, but is regarded as a generally decent entry by most fans. Red Alert 3 was complained about by fans because it was Lighter and Softer to the point of being overly camp. Finally C&C 4 has had the most criticism levelled at at because it tried to innovate - ironically, the same fans who complained about General's worker unit system used that as an example alternitive to the Crawler system. While camps for and against these titles have formed (usually along the lines of "X was pretty decent" or "X deserves to go die in a fire"), virtually nobody in the Community defends C&C 4 under the same lines. As is always with this fanbase, YMMV.
Professional Wrestling games can get just as heated as the industry fandom itself. Start from pre-vs-post Aki/synSophia/No Mercy fandoms and continue onwards to the feuds between the individual Smack Down titles and the SmackDown vs. Raw series.
The weirdest argument is between those who think that backstage areas, weapons and customisation make a game fun, and those who think they dilute the idea of it being a wrestling game.
Dead or Alive is also subjugated to broken fanbase, as it is mostly split on whether their deciding to make the series more into a volleyball/soft porn/beach game than the original fighting game ruined the series or was a big hit. The faction that thinks it's a big hit also is split on whether or not Team Ninja should or even would include actual nudity in the Xtreme/Paradise subseries (similar to a nude beach setting).
The inclusion of Male Idols in The Idolmaster has provoked an extremely hostile reaction from many fans who hate Project Jupiter with a bloody H. The fact to make room for them they had to turn 4 previously playable idols to unplayable lead to a greater source of flames
Starfox Adventures: Total waste of time and not enough Arwings or lovable new game mechanic and show of the gamecube's abilities? Nobody can tell.
Then again most agree that Star Fox Command was a horrible idea.
The Touhou is large and active, filled with people with widely varying tastes and interests. Despite this*
or possibly because of it; the fandom is generally too diverse to get groupthink going
, the fandom is generally one of the most peaceful you can find. It is, however, generally divided about a number of things:
The big one, canon versus fanon. A number of fans don't really approve of ignoring the fairly extensive side material for the sake of comedy (less often, drama). Others argue that Touhou is really all about the fandom, and what ZUN says shouldn't matter.
PC-98 vs Windows. Mostly an argument over whether the PC-98 games should be considered canon, as the number of people that legitimately think the PC-98 games are better are neglible.
The 6th through 8th games versus the 10th game and beyond*
the ninth game plays weird, and doesn't have enough people that seriously care about it to get into debates about it
. This is both gameplay-wise (the later games tend toward gimmicky patterns) and story-wise (the story got fleshed-out around that time, and changed things a lot from what they appeared to be). To a lesser extent, the 8th game versus everything else (the most complex, the most content, and some of the best writing and art).
There's now three fundementally different official fighting games. Naturally, they all have their own fans and detractors.
Fans of Diddy Kong Racing are divided over the original game vs. its DS remake. The remake brought numerous new things to the table, such as vehicle upgrades, more customization options, a new game mode, four new characters, and even a track maker. It even moved the Silver Coin Challenges out of the main game to the side, which, depending on how you look at things, could be good or bad.note "That One Level" vs. "Challenge Gamer," basically. However, it also introduced a very disliked new quickstart system (which was a dealbreaker on its own for many people), awkward new controls for the hovercraft, removed Conker and Banjo due to Microsoft now owning the IPs, and made battle games unplayable outside of multiplayer. Both versions have their fans, but never, ever ask which version is better.
Was Space Channel 5 Part 2 HD a good idea? Or was it Too Soon due to Michael Jackson's death?
Mech Warrior (and, indeed, the whole Battletech franchise) has suffered this perhaps the most of any video game franchise in history, and has severely hindered its fanbase. Everyone has a different idea of what Mechwarrior should be. The incredible amount of splitting is due to the following:
Many games to choose from. If you count up all the installments in the series with multiplayer, including expansions, fan mods, and at least three fan sequels, you've got a lot to choose from. While a lot of fans of a specific game will play whatever is available, every one of these divisions has its fans that simply will not compromise.
The Mech Assault games caused a lot of this, due to their arcade-style gameplay instead of the MechWarrior series' traditional simulator gameplay.
It is possible to turn off the heat mechanic and make ammo unlimited, drastically altering the dynamic of the game. This has generated two groups: NHUA (No Heat, Unlimited Ammo) and HOLA (Heat On, Limited Ammo). Again, there are many extremists in both groups that will not compromise and play the other if their preferred type is unavailable.
Battletech boardgame enthusiasts. These people want the game to be accurate to the boardgame. Some are more reasonable, and just want a resemblence to the source material for Mechwarrior. Others are fanatical and want the things in Mechwarrior to match the things in the boardgame number for number, at all costs. Since Battletech is a dice-based boardgame, things work there that don't work in an FPS (and would lead to a lot more one-shot deaths!).
Realism enthusiasts. A lot like the Battletech enthusiasts. These players demand more realism. This isn't unreasonable on its own, as Mechwarrior is simulator that is meant to give the feel of piloting a giant robot instead of a tank or airplane. But extremists want realism at all costs, even at the expense of the gameplay. There is also the matter that 100% realism eliminates a lot of elements in Mechwarrior... such as the Mechs themselves. In reality, there isn't much reason to make a large legged vehicle, and it would be incredibly vulnerable.
Nearly every online mode of each game had multiple fractures. Mechwarrior 2 Netmech suffered from this especially, which had inummerable versions due to constant upgrades to graphics, and were not backwards compatible. Netmech had DOS and Macintosh versions, and 3 Windows versions that weren't compatible with each other. Additionally, this was also before the era of built-in netplay as a standard: in the beginning, Netmech could only play over a LAN, and needed to use a service to play over the internet. There were multiple services, mplayer, Gamespy, Dwango, Kali, Khan, and eventually Activision's anet service. That's just one game! Mercnet (Mech2: Mercenaries netplay) was split similarily, Mechwarrior 3 is currently split between Gamespy, Gameranger, and the in-game browser, and Mechwarrior 4 is split by the numerous expansions and fan-mods.
Even generally passive fandoms like the Harvest Moon have these. Animal Parade vs Tree of Tranquility, updated versions in general vs the original, boy versions vs girl versions vs special editions, Harvest Moon 64 vs Back to Nature, Back to Nature vs Friends of Mineral Town, the typical "Game from generation vs game from same generation" war, and possibly most severe of all is the "Classic series (up unti DS or MM according to who you ask) vs Modern series".
Currently there's a rather large break in the fandom: "Fans who think the series went down hill from 64 and A Wonderful Life'', "Fans who think the new games (post-Magical Melody) are horrible", and "Fans who like the new games best". It's often related to how long you've been playing Harvest Moon and whether you prefer flashy and colorful romance or a cute Life Sim.
Which characterization of characters causes a riot around fans. Have all the characters lost their depth and interest between Harvest Moon 64 and Back to Nature, or are they far superior? Do you prefer the original guys or the Animal Parade version? Are the Mineral Town characters annoying in Island of Happiness?
Tsukihime, the base is broken over whether Ciel's Good Ending is good or not. Half of the base loves it because it's the harem ending, and the other half detests it for the same reason.
Ace Combat isn't the only Namco franchise to suffer from this. Ridge Racer Unbounded is being decried by series diehards because it's going in a Burnout-esque direction. All over some comments from the new developers and a reveal trailer that didn't show a lick of gameplay!
Then this trailer that HAD the gameplay came out and fans soon declared that the franchise was officially over.
Actually word of god has stated that Brad is not in fact gay.
StarCraft vs StarCraft II. Some fans believe that the second game is a boring, plotless waste of time and money. The other group believes the game is even better than the original and that Blizzard did a great job with it.One group liked the older game, where you had to micromanage the economy at the cost of merely watching combat, and another group likes the newer game, where you can manage the economy from a distance while managing combat instead (but not optimally). The new game also has an automated matchmaking system and "easier" controls, meaning more people who buy the game will actually play it at the cost of a potentially lower skill ceiling.
There was also the battle over battle.net features; the new version has many new features but dropped many old and beloved features by the release date. After some serious patching, this issue has been mostly resolved.
And now Hitman is about to get one post-Absolution reveal at E3 2011; although there has been debate in the fandom as to the merit of Contracts and some of the characterisation of 47 in Blood Money, Absolution seems practically designed to snap the fanbase in half. It will feature a different voice actor for Diana, possibly a different one for 47 himself (nobody seems sure what's going on there), a different composer to all four other games, 'more action' and attempts to make stealthy players play in a more action-oriented style, a more 'accessible' playstyle and will generally be a 'significantly different experience from other Hitman games'. A Storm Is Coming, unfortunately.
Though most people agreed that there was a huge improvement between The Sims and The Sims 2, there is a huge debate over whether The Sims 3 is better or worse than the 2nd game. Proponents say that it has more integrated gameplay and the fact that families age without you playing makes it easier, but haters says that the Sims look doughy and Uncanny Valley-ish and the families aging just makes everything harder.
For such a highly anticipated game. Batman Arkham City is getting a lot of Two Faced reactions from its announcements.
Catwoman a playable character? I thought this was a Batman game!
Riddler using death traps on innocent people? THIS ISN'T SAW! Wait...
Riddle themed death traps have been a fairly big part of the Riddler's modus operandi since his introduction.
Harley Quinn getting The Other Darrin treatment is really the only justifiable one because her original actress voiced her in the previous game and Hamill and Conroy are returning. Interviews with Tara Strong have set some at ease however.
Ever since SOCOM 4's release, a good half of the fanbase has been rather... vocal about their distaste. So much so that they're all but declaring [developer] Zipper the reincarnation of Hitler. The complaints are numerous but they all boil down to one core criticism: SOCOM 4 isn't a ''true''SOCOM game. Nicknames include SOCoD (i.e., SOCOM meets Call of Duty) or 3rd person MAG (i.e., Zipper's other PS3 shooter). Some are even so adamant about their opinion, they're spamming the Amazon forums to declare their distaste, and their acrimony within the official SOCOM forums is raised to intolerable levels. Most gaming critics, on the other hand, agree that it's a decent shooter, while the more supportive SOCOM fans say it's a few patches away from being So Okay, It's Average to being close-to-par with the original SOCOM games.
Another example is in the Rayman fanbase. When Raving Rabbids was released, the fanbase was split into many subsections. Justified due to the fact that the developers completely changed the genre (from platforming to mini-games).
And with Rayman Origins, it broke the fanbase even further. Some say it's even better than Rayman 1-3, some say it's good but not as good as the first three, some found it disappointing, and then there are those who haven't even played the game but hate it all because of Rayman's characterization (even though they fail to realize that Rayman is very young in this one), and claim that those who like it are newbies who haven't played the first three games.
Somewhat meta example in the Battlezone fanbase. Every time a new public beta of the unofficial 1.3 patch comes out (right now there are no less that 11 versions - it's been in development since 2001), there is much rage by those who don't like the changes. Excarberated even more by the fact that while 1.3pb3 is widely regarded as the most moddable version, the later ones are not really compatible with mods written for previous versions (in one instance, the most popular mod and unofficial sequel Forgotten Enemies was rewritten for pb3 - and one of the testers reported that the new version works much better on pb5 than on the version it was intended for!).
In fact, some hardline veterans vilify the entire 1.3 series of patches because of how the patch developers changed some things in the physics engine as compared to 1.2, most notably a glitch that enabled hovercraft to fly at any altitude. As the lore goes, the first version of 1.3 took out flying because it was a glitch that gave LOTS of headaches to new players. When the developer was repeatedly flamed for this by angry vets, his response was that he's keeping the change in all future versions but he MIGHT undo it if the flamers apologize.
1.3pb6.1 - the newest version - fixed several lagging issues but introduced a rather nasty one that caused multiplayer games with five or more players to heavily lag for a while then simultaneously kick EVERYONE. Lots of flame from accusations of blaming crappy internet connections on the developers to calling each other names ensued.
League of Legends. Summoner spells - essentially very powerful abilities on long cooldowns, a valuable addition to the MOBA genre/a crutch to get "undeserved" kills or escapes depending on who you ask. In particular the Flash spell, which teleports you a short distance and can be used to pull off skilled initiation tricks/escape any gank no matter how badly you are out of position. Player opinion is harshly divided about the spell, although many players and even the developers see it as a necessary evil due to its impact on game balance, and others declare the game uncompetitive and its gameplay overly passive solely due to this spell. For what it's worth, almost all professional e-sports players choose it as a matter of fact.
The only summoner spell there is any agreement about is Revive - the general opinion is that it's the worst summoner spell in the game.
And even that's not entirely true, as the small faction of people who play Dominion competitively assert that Revive is one of the strongest possible summoner spell picks on that map.
Any change, introduction, or update no specifically catered to the will of the Unpleasable Fanbase will instantly them. And updates occur once a week.
New Champions split the base for/against when they are announced and split those bases when they are released. Things get fractal once balance changes start.
In fact, the three big MOBA games in general. DotA, League of Legends, and Heroes of Newerth. All three will argue that Icefrog sucks at balancing and Dota 2's UI is terrible and its art style is unimpressive, LoL is a casualized part-MMORPG that dumbed down the genre, and that nobody should care about HoN because it's arguably the least popular of the three and S2 ruined DotA's balance/are capitalist pigs. Basically, you can't like more than one of these.
The online Doom community has three main multiplayer ports - Skulltag, which introduces many new features to Doom - mostly in the modding department, resulting in a very wide variety of mods for it. ZDaemon, which is a blend of newschool and oldschool gameplay, and has a release schedule that rivals Duke Nukem Forever. Odamex, which is open-source (unlike the first two, although Skulltag is supposed to be open-sourced sooner or later), and strives for an oldschool style of gameplay, with a few newschool features, like CTF and jumping, thrown in (although disabled by default). Naturally, there are some deep splits in the community based on what port you prefer to use for multiplayer. It's not as bad as some, but Odamexers don't intermingle with Skulltaggers very often, and ZDaemoners are generally hated by both of the other camps. It's been getting a bit better, though...
Situations goes from bad to worse at Mega Man 8 Bit Deathmatch when the subject is Rendering Engine. OpenGL users vs Software-Rendering users.
This is so serious, that even poking the subject starts a flame war, specially if you consider most developers (Whether of the main game or of mods) actually uses OpenGL.
And then, there is King Yamato's Classes Mod and Yellow Devil's Classes Mod. Try to get your point across about one of them to the other, JUST. TRY.
In fact, there's a LOT of conflict within the community, but they still keep stuff going just fine. It's like a group of friends that argues a lot among themselves but gets things done. Most of the time, done RIGHT.
Almost every update for Minecraft breaks the fan base into smaller and smaller pieces. The biggest one came from the enchantment system that uses experience points to power up tools and armor. This caused the fan base to be split up between people who are for the feature and others that are against it by saying how the game is now too much like an RPG.
The shattered fan base also shattered themselves further when Notche had announced that Minecraft would be coming to the Xbox360. Fans declared that Minecraft was now utterly ruined because they felt Notch either sold out or would make the game appeal more to the frat boy FPS fans.
The fan base is now divided over who is the better developer of the game. Once Jeb took over as head developer after Notch stepped down and started to push out more features, people either say Jeb is awesome and Notch sucks or how Jeb is changing too many things.
Naturally, the base got even more broken when one of the snapshots showed single player and multiplayer being combined as one. This means that when you play alone, you still connect to a server, namely yours. Fans somehow interpreted the changes as letting anyone, griefers included, getting into your game unannounced and how being on a server will lag the game even more. Others counter that single player and multiplayer coding will be the same so bug fixes can be done faster and how online games will have invites instead of open servers.
Don't like a feature for a legitimate reason (oceans are ridiculously big, who has time to travel all that?)? Then you're a whiner.
Every update always brings about a flame war over whether or not Minecraft was better off with Notch or Jeb.
Step one: Mention Steam on the forums for the X-Universe. Step two: Watch the normally amicable and helpful forum turn into a war zone.
The sticking point is that the games up to and including X3: Terran Conflict have been available both with and without Steam. Starting with X3: Albion Prelude and continuing to the yet-to-be-released X Rebirth, Steam is required. The flame wars have gotten to the point where the moderators have basically banned talking about Steam except for one particular thread, and Egosoft has promised a no-Steam-required executable for Albion Prelude.
Also, multiplayer, whether MMO or something smaller like an arena. The boards seem to be split about 70-30 against, with the biggest worry of the antis being that it would attract trolls and griefers.
Character selections in general for long running series. Developers can never avoid pissing someone off whenever a beloved character from a previous game doesn't appear in the next game or how a popular yet-never-appeared character still hasn't been included in the character roster.
Also, Continuum Shift 2 is either the most balanced and polished version of the game yet, or an inferior version with a metagame that rewards you for trapping your opponent in the corner and raping them rather than pulling off a stylish combo.
Slight Hope has to be mentioned, as the story itself is a major source of Makoto's current Broken Base. One side supports it, commenting on how it expands on Makoto's role in events and elaborates on several pieces of other characters' stories (Rachel's Character Development, Tsubaki's Mind Rape, Litchi's memory deterioration and Boundary corruption). The other side rejects it, broadsiding it on pushing Makoto's role too hard for their tastes (this is where the lion's share of the Canon Sue complaints come from, even though her relevance had been elevated bit by bit throughout Continuum Shift proper and in her Arcade mode). Somewhere in the middle is a group that tries to make sense of the story in a way that appeases both sides, but the far camps are particularly loud. They're basically the ones calling the shots.
NOL overall. One base think it's an organization version of The Empire that's only interested in expanding their power at cost of people's welfare, where every rebel, no matter how 'bad' (like Sector Seven) is going to be honorable La Résistance who fights for the people, one base thinks that NOL is ultimately a Well-Intentioned Extremist organization that fell in the manipulation of Terumi and Relius, but otherwise are really the ones who would give a damn about the other people's welfare, while 'resistances' like Sector Seven are just as bad and deplorable and the ones that doesn't give a damn for the people, only interested in filling their own ambitions, setting up a Black and Gray Morality.
Mario Party 9 has become this due to the massive changes in the mechanics of the game. People are either for the changes or against it.
Dynasty Warriors Online suffers from this.There are a few splits that pop up from time to time, such as if a weapon is overpowered. If you look through the forum history you will see legions of splits on one thing or another. One of the longer running problems is "musou", in that weather it's overpowered or fine. It's died off as new weapons and abilities popped up.
You either go Honor and Fame farming or Item, Gear and Weapon farming. That's another point where the community splits. One side is all above fighting other players, even sitting through a Campaign lobby to hold out for enemies while the rest of the players just want to farm items with no player enemy. The other side only wants to rush to a battlefield with no player enemy to quickly harvest all they can and get things done.
Doesn't help the game's PVP is broken beyond belief due to Backwards Reconciliation causing hits to be "delayed" on another player, which usually makes easy for the player to forget where his enemy is and was.
Asura's Wrath presents another example of a base that has people that enjoy the unique ay the game plays, with others basically hating how it's basically mostly QTE's and most of the gameplay elements aren't all that apparent. In spit eof the fact that there are plenty of playable segments throughout the game, and the game was intentionally supposed to come off as an interactive anime since the beginning of development. Similarly, the DLC has gotten some controversy for having a DLC "ending" (Even though if you look carefully, it's full new part and not just an ending that is being given to you).
The fanbase for Godzilla Unleashed is divided over whether or not the Wii version is better than the PS2 version.
Ambiguously canon "standalone expansion pack" Cataclysm was pretty divisive as well, with a lot of people disliking its Genre Shift away from Space Opera and the introduction of Cosmic Horror elements but many enjoying the fact that it fleshed out a lot of background elements to the game's world that'd previously been confined to the game's manual.
Homeworld 2Retconned multiple points of established canon, suffered from several Plot Holes and was generally rather rushed; Relic had run out of money with a long way still to go before realising their original lofty ambitions and the game was somewhat thrown together. Opinion is sharply divided on whether it's "pretty good but could have been far better" or "ruined the series permanently".
Fate/stay night: Going on a forum and asking which of the three routes/heroines is your favorite is a surefire way to start an argument among fans.
Heck, Heaven's Feel in general is a Base Breaker. Is the route just as good or even better than the other two routes, or is it poorly written and excessively dark? Is Sakura a Woobie who isn't to blame for the deaths of hundreds of people, or is she an Extreme Doormat who bears at least some responsibility for the aforementioned deaths? Is Shirou giving up his ideals for Sakura's sake a good thing, or is the Mind of Steel ending more in-character? Which ending is more appropriate, the true ending or the normal ending? Fans will never agree.
With the third installment long out and a fourth one on the way, the Saints Row fanbase seems to be having a split. Some fans greatly enjoy the extremely over-the-top antics and comedy of The Third, and hope to see its zany elements expanded upon. Others greatly dislike the tonal shift from the first two games (which were more grounded and along the lines of Grand Theft Auto), finding the humor and action to be juvenile. The former holds that the series has come into its own after Follow the Leader, the latter that it's Jumped the Shark. It doesn't help that many were inevitably disappointed due to Saints Row 2 being a Tough Act to Follow. But, most of all, no matter what else you do, never mention Johnny Gat's death.
Not to mention the opinions on the massive changes in the characters. Some preferred SR 2 stoner Shaundi, while some like the more professional version in the third (But most fans support Pierce change from typical gangsta to a more suave character).
PAYDAY The Heist had a stable and pleasant fan base until a secret was hinted to be in the game. Thanks to the developers giving out very vague hints, the fan base eventually split up into smaller groups just to find the secret for themselves so they could get credit. Once the secret itself was revealed and its methods were shown, the fan base fell apart. To access the secret itself, people needed the gold masks, which are only earned by beating the first 6 levels on the highest difficulty (far from an easy task), wait 2 hours (real time) for a door to open, and then press specific tiles in the floor to open the vault (pressing the wrong one releases deadly gas), all while doing everything on the highest difficulty. The fan base grew divided between people who thought the methods to get to the secret were fine and people that were upset that they could not access the secret because they didn't have the gold masks. It also didn't help that players only had one month to get to the secret if they wanted the masks inside the vault and another prize.
After the event was over, the developers left the secret vault and its pile of gold in the game and changed it where anyone, regardless of their mask, can access the vault, it could be done on any difficulty, and the 2 hour wait was reduced to 30 minutes. Players quickly used the secret vault to Level Grind with minimal effort and the fan base quickly demanded for the vault to be put back to its original requirements.
There are three types of Jet Set Radio fans: Those who love Classic but dislike Future for the sole fact that it's easier, those who love Future but dislike Classic for being too linear and hard, and those who enjoy both games. Most fans enjoy both games, but you will run into quite a few people who like Classic but not Future, and people who like Future but not Classic.
The switch that Monster Hunter made from Sony to Nintendo appears to have split the fanbase clean in two; the fans of the older PS2 and PSP games say that Tri and 3 Ultimate are too easy or just hate Nintendo overall, while the fans of the newer games accuse these people of being "try-hards" and "elitists".
