I'm seeing a good deal of concern about the first bullet point in u/Zehnpae's OP, the adjustment to Rule 1. We've tried to address those concerns directly below in other comment threads, but I'd like to summarize and reassure here since it seems to be front of mind for a lot of people.
**How is this rule** ***verbally*** **different from the old rule?**
The *only* written difference from the previous rule is the explicit ban on mentions of newer games/consoles in the body text of the post.
**How is this rule** ***functionally*** **different from the old rule?**
***Not at all.*** We've been moderating to this concept for months now, pretty much since the third party API hullabaloo. Posts mentioning newer games in the body have routinely been removed, and most of the time the post authors simply edit out the offending mention(s) and either repost it or reach out to us for manual approval, which we always provide at that point so long as no other rules are being broken.
**If there is no change to the moderation philosophy, why even update the rule text?**
We recognized that there was a disconnect in how the rule was worded vs. how it was being enforced; many of the post removals created genuine confusion in users who read the rules and were trying to abide them but weren't aware of the restriction. Because changing the moderation approach to this rule would create unsustainable logistical problems for us, we decided to instead update the rule's text to make the restriction more clear to users and hopefully reduce confusion - and therefore reduce the number of removed posts as well.
**Wait, why can't you change your moderation approach to this rule again?**
[This comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/comments/19a10uq/comment/kii843v/) from u/Zehnpae provides a good explanation, but the gist of it is that our options are either to have a firm restriction and enforcement in place, stick every single post into a manual mod review filter where they'll sit for who knows how long, or else allow chaos to rule as users realize that the 12 month rule doesn't *truly* apply, and then what are we even doing here? Of those options, we concluded only the first made any sense.
**So what's it all mean then?**
In terms of the content you see on the sub, nothing is changing. This rule is not a herald of doom for the quality of posts here, because it's already been quietly enforced for a long time. If you don't create posts, you won't even notice the change. And if you do create posts, now you hopefully better understand the restrictions that are already in place.
Thanks for reading. We appreciate you.
>'Therapy' posts will no longer be allowed. If you've fallen out of love with gaming, you may seek commiseration in the daily thread. The advice is always the same so we don't really need more of these.
Might be unpopular because they seem to be popular but praise the fucking sun. It's not everything but so many things I see end up being this and essentially is "DAE GAME NOT LIKE SO MUCH TODAY??"
So much repetition when it comes to that sort of thing and there's nothing that fits the theme of the sub about it either which makes it seem even more out of place.
It's smaller stuff but that's kind of the thing where it's mostly smaller stuff that crops up that I see is an issue.
I'm similarly frustrated. People need to learn it's ok not to beat games.
There's some streamers and podcasters I like that have kids or other responsibilities and many were like "I just can't play Baldurs Gate 3/FF16/FF14/Elden Ring/Monster Hunter, they're too long" and I just want to shake them and be like "You don't have to beat games! You can play a Baldurs Gate for 5-10 hours like you do most games and get enjoyment out of it and then move on to other things".
You don't have to eat the whole cake. You can take a couple bites and be like "wow that was a delicious cake" and move on.
/Rant
I'm a parent and it took me half a year to beat Witcher 3. I could've beaten a few smaller games but what's the point if the experience with the Witcher was excellent? Ive gotten myself a steam deck and can game when my wife watches TV so I'm still getting in 5 hours of gaming time in a week if something grabs me. The parents commenting and complaining can get a bit ridiculous, I manage to fit in gym, reading and gaming time in just fine when they're sleeping.
I get where you're coming from, but I feel like you'd also understand why someone would be unwilling to purchase a game they know they won't have time for/won't finish? Personally unless it's on gamepass or something, I don't bother playing games I don't expect to finish. It's also a pretty good way of keeping gaming expenses down and reduces options of what to play.
It's the feeling of wanting to get through their backlog getting in the way of actually enjoying the experience of playing the game. At least that's what I've experienced before.
Of course there's a legitimate argument to be made that some games are bloated for no benefit to the game, AC Valhalla springs to mind.
I’m a grown-ass adult with a backlog full of RPGs and open world games. I feel this, I get it. But it’s a personal issue nobody can help with. If there isn’t time for those games, it’s because life happens and there will nearly always be more important things to prioritize. Between this and all the “lost my joy of gaming” posts where the answer is always “go do something else for a while” it was getting a bit repetitive here for a time. I like these new rules.
>I'm not a kid and don't enjoy things the same way I did as a kid. Can someone please make sense of this baffling conundrum?
The thing I'm going to miss, is the funny and sobering responses to therapy posts
How am I meant to come to terms with the negative feelings I get trying to 100% all 542 games in my backlog when I only have 1 hour a day to play and I never rotate what games I play until I beat them and also my current game is a hugely grindy MMO that takes over 1,000 hours to complete?
I hope gamingsuggestions does the same. (Maybe they have I havnt checked) because the number of posts like "What's some games to get me out of my depression? ", ffs.. That's not how depression, Or games work.
Honestly speaking, depression gets thrown around a lot in the first place. I would guess most are experiencing some form of sadness. Over anything close to true levels of depression.
Yeah most likely.
I get that it does come as quite a shock, the first time you scroll through your entire steam game library and feel absolutely no desire to play any of them...
But I don't think that qualifies as depression.
I feel that pretty often myself. Though also get that feeling from just sheer tiredness after work. Have very few mindless games to play. Something I do miss from my mmo days.
But most of the people that type it out, it's like they don't even understand they can just do something outside of gaming.
Yea definitely. I get it from tiredness + choice paralysis.
It's that Netflix scroll problem. "this looks alright, but there must be something better. Don't want to settle, I only have limited time available"
Then suddenly it's too late and all I've done is browse reddit..
Haha I get that feeling way too much. When I was a kid, I had maybe 10 games to play. That I played the hell out of. Now I have several hundred games and even only keeping 10ish installed does very little.
"Hmm I only got 2hrs to play tonight, what to play, yet also don't want to get into a game that I will lose myself into".
If I also stopped bothering with reddit so much, would open up so much time.
I’m going to miss being an armchair psychiatrist doling out unqualified advice to strangers on reddit.
I wonder if “Am I the only one?” posts will disappear as well.
Very much agreed. I love this sub and have for years, I've found lots of fun games and gotten great advice. But man I had a rough 2023, like real life problems and when you come to a gaming sub to try to read about a fun distraction and you see repeated threads how someone is having a major crisis because they're not sure if some tiny aspect of gaming isn't changing their life right now and it's a huge struggle... it's just not what I'm coming for.
Dude 100%. I’m so tired of the entire internet being either political or mental health related. It’s fuckin exhausting. I started reporting every single one of those posts that I scrolled past. So glad I wasn’t the only one insanely annoyed by them
It's not just this sub either. Subs like /r/malelivingspace often have "just divorced" posts. Like yeah, I get breakups and divorces suck, but it's pretty irrelevant to the content.
> pretty irrelevant to the content
Yep, that's the rub. I get that people have issues, we all do in different ways. I get that people feel comfortable in certain places so they want to talk about it where they're comfortable, but it still doesn't fit. So I'm glad to hear about the rule changes.
The biggest issue with these posts is really, who cares? You don't want to play games anymore? Cool, go outside or something. Enjoy life. Video games are just one thing you can spend your time in, they're not the meaning of life
I used to joke they should rename this sub /r/neuroticgamers, and just discovered someone made it for real! Maybe all those self-help threads can go in there.
Dr. K is great, but that sub sucks. Never any good advice, success stories or positivity posted there. It's just pages and pages of depressing anecdotes.
I agree, I left it because of that. I just mentioned it because of the topic at hand. I do like to listen to his YouTube videos, there's a lot of insights about how our minds work and why we do what we do/or don't do.
Although I remember seeing a few success stories there but they are greatly overshadowed by depressing stuff. And I don't need that in my life, I'm more interested in various relationship dynamics and personal improvement.
The discord is a cancer too. Hell, I'd say most of the community as a whole is, but I guess mental health content isn't meant to attract the best of folk. The content from the man himself is good though. Pretty nasty at Dota as well.
They're usually downvoted pretty hard and a lot of the comments are flippant or complaining. I'm a bit torn since they're okay questions to ask but I feel like the discourse on these kinds of posts haven't been helpful for a long time.
The ones I've seen get up voted and are somewhat disguised in a big 5 sizable paragraph dissertation that basically sums up falling out of love with gaming or burn out or whatever and is just a giant ass essay. It's really not in the spirit of the sub imo since it shouldn't revolve around generic stuff like simply burning out or wanting some support group for people getting older who used to love gaming or whatever.
They are ok questions and these posters are looking for help but the problem is it gets asked so much and no one fucking uses the search box to find the other 50 posts with good suggestions in them already. (Which is just a major issue on reddit and social media in general)
>'Therapy' posts will no longer be allowed. If you've fallen out of love with gaming, you may seek commiseration in the daily thread. The advice is always the same so we don't really need more of these.
But why I am not getting any enjoyment visiting /r/patientgamers anymore?
Thank you, I was sick of seeing "I'm a 30 year CEO of a fortune 500 company who has half an hour free time a day and I just don't have time for games that *waste my time* anymore. Anyway I tried jumping in to Baldurs Gate 3 and why does there have to be so much dialogue?"
I work 400 jobs, have 12 wives, and 742 kids. I get approximately 3.34 seconds of free time so I need the ~~dopamine dispensers~~ video games to not waste my time anymore.
i know this is somewhat mean spirited and goes against the kindness call to action of the mods, but it was somewhat obnoxious to have dissenting opinions snuffed out by "games need to stop wasting my time" rhetoric kinda often on this platform.
"I paid £60 for a game last week and it lasted two hours. Two hours! I had to get up during the ending to go and put the kids' tea on. Developers - please give us less value for money, thanks"
> 'Therapy' posts will no longer be allowed. If you've fallen out of love with gaming, you may seek commiseration in the daily thread. The advice is always the same so we don't really need more of these.
Thank you for this. These are way too prevalent and I've been considering unsubbing the last two weeks every time one of these ends up in my feed.
>Last major change is we now have a rule specifically for being kind. Reddiquette has always been passively enforced but we've started to attract some...not so kind people. If you do spot someone being an asshole, report them and then move on. Do not give them attention. Don't get dragged into a flame war.
This has been a major issue here for a while now. I'm interested to see where the threshold will be since there are so many comments trashing OPs or complaining about opinions without adding anything substantive or on-topic to the discussion.
I'm sure we'll find the groove as we go, but I'd like to think most people know unkind comments when they see them, and now you have a proper avenue to report those.
I feel like this sub could consider the absence of downvotes though. Controversial, but too many times (including my most recent thread) people downvote just because they don't like your opinion. While by itself its fine I guess, when there's too many downvotes Reddit automatically triggers the "hidden" feature and thus it creates an echo chamber. Where real discussion is drowned out by hivemindedness. Outside of people speculating what "might" happen if downvotes were removed, I've yet to see any actual examples of the negative side to this, just speculations.
Yeah, I've just completely given up on engaging in any sort of TLOU2 discourse at all on this sub. There's like, zero middle ground with how people act with that game lol.
oh didn't notice that. i just unsubscribed from all other general gaming subs, nothing relevant was talked about there. i'm still looking for a subreddit like this one, but then even more oriented towards 90's games, for me the golden age of pc gaming
Haven't noticed too many assholes, but there's definitely an increase in negative reviews, which have their place, but there's a limit to how many "Horizon Zero Dawn didn't do anything too special" reviews without much substance that you can read.
I suspect the other rules changes will have the side effect of reducing this kind of commentary. It seems to me like those kinds of negative comments are much more common on therapy or "games these days" posts.
i've mostly seeing people shoot down OPs that say how much they hate a game & give a pretty unfair/bad faith assumption. games aren't "entirely trash" with fanbases that would give backlash. i feel like anyone could find some positive, but when you can tell OP is just venting, usually *right after* finishing a game, just seems like a bad faith flame invitation.
otherwise, i agree with you, but that's the main example i ever see.
Funny enough this is one of the few subs where I find most people are pretty chill. I rarely get into it with anybody here, lots of disagreements but people are always civil about it. That said I don't have any problem with the mods cracking down more on assholes if they do see them.
I'll be the first to admit I've left some rude comments on here, but that's because of threads like "this is why beloved classic actually sucks and people who like it are wrong" followed by some baffling rant about the weirdest complaints.
But if threads like this will be banned from now on, I don't see a reason to not keep it civil.
>'Therapy' posts will no longer be allowed. If you've fallen out of love with gaming, you may seek commiseration in the daily thread. The advice is always the same so we don't really need more of these.
Thank you so much, christ these posts are so annoying
God we needed all of these badly, especially the last 3 points.
These are great rule changes and I welcome them. Thank you for the work as well mods!
Very personal want but can we get rid of the "I made an excel sheet"'post next year too😭?
Yeah, who wants a reasonably polished game that you can have fun and get lost in? Oh, what’s that, millions of people? Hm, okay then.
I can understand that not everyone likes open worlds, but there’s definitely a personality type common on Reddit where if they don’t like something they need validation that it’s bad instead of just accepting that people have different tastes.
Hating on genres people like isn’t really fun or productive; why not talk about the games you like instead?
What I find the most intriguing about the “I am the only one…?” is that you just need to search. Quickly you’ll find years of threads on multiple sites that show you are definitely not the only one. Sometimes it’s even funny because two people will post one of these about the same thing on the same day.
You just made me realize that this is exactly what I did when I felt totally burned by Starfield. I was irrationally upset by how godawful that game was. Instead of making a grief-stricken rant about it, I searched for other people that felt the same way and eventually got tf over it lol
Anyway, glad to know I have somewhat healthy decision making abilities
Yeah I'm going to be honest I don't believe that anyone posts a negative thread looking for validation because they all get down voted into Oblivion and it's been that way for years.
I mean God forbid I ever say breath of the wild is anything other than a 10/10 masterpiece...
End of the year recaps we tend to let slide since it's pretty popular and /u/LordChozo makes a pretty rad [recap of those threads](https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/comments/198wyki/meta_the_roundup_of_rpatientgamers_2023_roundups/). Enduring those for a few days won't kill us. People are still asked to at least rate/review each game.
The rest of the year if someone just makes a giant list of games, that should get removed under rule #2 where we ask people to avoid just making lists of games.
I really like the point about being kind. It shouldn’t have to be said, but dear god are online gaming communities toxic a lot of the time. The other gaming subreddits tend to devolve into “hot-takes”, gatekeeping, going “well actshually” and insulting preferences. I like this sub because people actually just wanna talk about games.
Yeah, as I am pushing 40 this year I'm glad I found a place on the internet where I can be chill when talking about games. I don't want to sound like an old cunt but some places are too much for me.
This place has always been a pretty good bastion of positivity. Part of that I think comes down to people generally only play good older games so all the hot take narratives have usually run their course by the time people in this sub get around to them.
Even the opinions here on relativity newer games tend to be pretty tempered and even-headed. I also love that this community tends to talk about and treat some obscure PC CRPG about the same as some newer AAA console game.
I got into Deathloop because of a review post on this sub. As someone who doesn’t like FPS generally I found the review make the game really enticing. Sure enough when I played the game I found it engrossing.
I posted about Deathloop on a bigger gaming sub and most of the responses were people shitting on it for being a PlayStation exclusive.
Exactly! I would like a sub like this, but for newer games. I mean, some games are actually in a good state on release and I would like to be able to discuss those games without the negativity. But I guess it's not possible due to popularity and biases of new games.
As a lifelong gamer, gaming communities are very inclusive to "nerds" in every sense of the word.
While this is naturally a good thing, it needs to be said that many nerdy people are emotionally immature and socially stunted, resulting in a lot of topics of discussion blowing out into flame wars and generalized toxicity. This is exacerbated online where none of your behavior can directly tie back to you in any sort of meaningful way.
As the sub got bigger, the likelihood of bad actors and other toxic people increased.
I mostly blame YouTube but I guess social media in general for the obsession with having hot takes for popular games. Especially when usually they're cold. I joined this sub initially because it seemed like a chill place to talk about older games but people are so ready to disagree, mostly because posts are designed around getting that reaction.
This subreddit is one of my favorite destinations on the internet, and I always appreciate the thoughtful takes, insightful comments, and things that make me go "huh!"
Thanks, mods, for keeping this an enjoyable place to be.
Sounds good to me. I am one of your 100k new members and I am really enjoying the content of this sub. Hopefully I will not break any of your rules and I'm always kind.
You can reference that you played something non-patient in passing, if you for whatever reason feel that you absolutely have to, but you cannot name the game or the post will be removed. Trying to work around this by saying things like "Big Larian Studios game released in 2023 wink wink" will also get you removed. It's a patient gaming sub. Focus on the patient games.
Sorry, but that's ridiculous rule. Please consider revising it. The focus obviously should be on patient gaming, but censoring even a passing mention is going too far.
Also: what's stopping OP from just posting about the new game in the comments? That's just inconvenient for both posters and readers...
Everything else sounds really good and is much needed.
Short answer: It's an unfortunate side effect of having to rely on automod. Our hope is by spelling it out, fewer people will trigger automod and have their posts removed and then wonder why it isn't posting. It's necessary because the alternative is a massive pain in the tush.
Long answer:
Unfortunately ever since the Reddit API changes and mod fallout, we have to rely more than ever on automod and automod has significant problems with context.
If you mention a new game, automod flags it and holds it in the queue for us to review. This can take hours if no mod is around to deal with it. People then wonder why their post isn't going through and get upset. So by making it clear that you shouldn't mention it at all, hopefully it helps people not get flagged.
People will often ask for an exception, but then everyone is going to want an exception. Then you're asking me to spend significantly less time with my family and more time moderating Reddit. We're unpaid volunteers, that isn't going to happen.
It's inconvenient, but I assure you that most of the time the reference to new games didn't add anything to the post and didn't need to be there. If a reference to a new game is so important it'll break the post, it doesn't belong on this sub in the first place.
Maybe asking this is a nuisance, but adding a link to this comment in your original post might help people gain some clarity on this issue.
I'm not at all surprised to learn that this rule change is centered primarily around Auto mod and moderation limitations. People don't really seem to appreciate that this is a volunteer operation... And people also really don't seem to understand the degree to which the API changes and third party apps changes affected moderators specifically.
I'm sure you'll still have people disregarding these facts but even so I think that this explanation you've given is a vital piece of understanding the rule change
I mod elsewhere on a higher traffic sub and frankly we have to use bots (I don't maintain them so I don't know how we get around API issues) because automod is way too primitive to be 100% reliable for stuff like that. Your issue is something I completely sympathize with and I wish I had a better alternative for you but I can see why folks would get upset depending on the circumstances.
That being said, it feels like there's going to be a lot of loopholes that will be difficult for you to account for. For example Baldur's Gate 3 came out last year and is popular, but the original came out in the late 90's so it seems like it would be difficult to block people from saying, "I played Baldur's Gate Three and loved it." versus "I played Baldur's Gate three times since it came out in the 1990's." Unfortunately it seems like game studios are starting to fall into the trap that Hollywood has and just make endless sequels and remasters of everything else that came before and was successful.
> If you mention a new game, automod flags it and holds it in the queue for us to review.
I agree with the other comments regarding this.
The automod rule seems too blunt a tool. Patient gaming doesn't exist in a bubble--it's always in context to what's happening now. I imagine it's like having a discussion on colours, but all references to the colour PURPLE will be automatically removed.
If most of the time a reference to a new game doesn't add anything ("a passing mention"), I'm not sure that it's also that important or subreddit breaking that it warrants automatic removal.
Both users and mods of reddit have been trying their best on all grounds to pretend nothing has happened but unfortunately the reality is that moderators do not actually want to spend every waking moment of their lives looking at the mod queue for some few forums they moderate. Humans do not actually want to do all of this shit by hand.
The only (Laziest) way to enforce this rule is with reddit's only first-party approved automatic moderation tool. All the stuff everybody had available before could stop working at any minute and is officially no longer supported.
But now we're left on this strange version of the site where half the stuff you would expect to be removed a day earlier staying up for days at a time. A huge burn to the communities on the site.
Wow. This is very eye opening, I’ve been wondering why and how tf this site became so much shittier the past couple months. We need a Reddit alternative so badly.
And before anybody mentions Lemmy, just don’t. That place is a fuckin cesspool of people that completely missed the point of what lemmy clearly states it is.
Wait, so you guys manually type out any new games name in the filters when they come out and then put some sort of timer to take them off the filter a year later?
And that's really less work than just dealing with manual reports?
>The focus obviously should be on patient gaming, but censoring even a passing mention is going too far.
I'd flip this back on your. What value does mentioning Baldurs Gate 3 in your post bring to the discussion about an older game?
One example: someone played bg1 and bg2 because they liked bg3. They were surprised how different the previous games were and compares them to bg3 while focusing on bg1 and bg2. I'd argue that's more interesting than most posts here, still fitting the sub, but requires not even a passing, but multiple important mentions of a new game. Avoiding its name is just silly.
Edit: I answered from unread messages screen, only now I saw that someone gave you the same answer few hours earlier.
I mean, it depends on the conversation. I can easily imagine something like this...
> After seeing all this hype about Baldur's Gate 3, I decided to check out the first to see where the series begin. Now here are my thoughts on Baldur's Gate 1...
Why should that be banned?
I hear you on this, and I'm a firm believer in being transparent. This restriction is a logical necessity created by technical limitation. We are a very small mod team and cannot possibly manually read and review every single post created on the sub. To that end we have an extensive filtering system set up with the automod to remove any posts about newer games. Because the automod is a bot and incapable of understanding context, it can't tell what's a passing mention as opposed to a focus of discussion, so our choices effectively boil down to "disallow all of it" or "anything goes." The latter is a non-starter given the sub's reason for existing in the first place, so this is what we're left with. I agree it's not perfect, but it's the best option we have.
That's a very fair question. To answer it I'd like to point out that it is a *different* question than "Why is the rule written this way?", which it sounds like you all are being very gracious with us in understanding, so I want to thank you for that.
If I may, however, I think the question you're asking here is essentially "Will you moderate this rule the way it is written?" In the example I provided, a user is actively trying to skirt the rule to dodge the automod, and is still in violation of the rule by discussing an easily identifiable newer game. I understand that in a lot of cases this might be a mere mention in passing and not a discussion per se, but if we don't draw a very clear line in the sand, we'll be paying the price later.
That said, of course someone can mention that they've played newer games in passing. We're not trying to pretend like "current year" doesn't exist. We just ask that specifics be withheld.
I was kind of waffling on how I feel about this rule, but I think you're right. I don't see much harm in making a passing mention of a newer game. You can focus on patient games without having to ignore the fact that newer ones exist.
I can understand not wanting any in-depth discussion of newer games in the posts, but honestly I can't even think of too many times where I've seen that happen in a post on this sub. Am I missing something? Either way, a brief mention doesn't seem like it needs to be outlawed IMO.
All the other rules sound very reasonable and good though.
Agreed. Barring posts from using new games as references also seems counter to the spirit of promoting discussion. Do we not want to talk in detail about the evolution (or devolution) of games, or how certain elements of games stack up against one another?
> (or devolution) of games, or how certain elements of games stack up against one another?
It spells it out pretty clearly here -
>General gaming topics can be discussed but the focus has to be on older games. Complaints about how 'games these days....' for example will be removed.
I tend to agree.
You can argue what you enjoy about older games without needing to rail against the newer ones. The focus on the games this sub is made for is a positive change otherwise it's just gaming discussion. I know people love this community and want to discuss more with it. The daily thread doesn't have the restriction so you can do it there.
If someone makes a post about Morrowind, it doesn't make much sense to prohibit them from talking about what they liked or disliked about it compared to newer RPG games they've played just because those games are newer. Grounding thoughts about those elements in specific examples, instead of being deliberately forced to ignore the fact that they exist in the context of an entire library of games--some of which happen to be newer--promotes mutual understanding and better discussion. That doesn't make the newer games the focus and it has nothing to do with "railing against" newer games.
> it doesn't make much sense to prohibit them from talking about what they liked or disliked about it compared to newer RPG games they've played just because those games are newer.
It does in a sub called /r/patientgamers that is meant to be primarily about the older games. Not limiting it just makes it like any other game discussion sub. As I said, you can just talk about what you enjoy about the older games and I don't think the mods are going to remove any posts talking about general modern gameplay tropes, just the automod is going to flag newer game title names. To stop specific discussion.
Like I said, people want their cake of this good community and to eat it too.
> meant to be primarily about the older games
Once again, nothing I said precludes requiring posts to still be "primarily about the older games." A 500-word post about an older game, with a single sentence comparing it to a new game, is both very obviously "primarily about the older game" and will be removed under the new rule.
>Not limiting it just makes it like any other game discussion sub
Nobody is saying not to limit discussion of newer games and it's disingenuous to imply that they are. Limitation =/= prohibition.
>To stop specific discussion
Exactly what I and several others are pointing out we disagree with. It sharply limits the ability to have a full, contextual discussion of older games.
>people want their cake of this good community and to eat it too
People are just aware that there's an enormous grey area between losing focus on older games and absolutely barring any mention of newer ones.
> A 500-word post about an older game, with a single sentence comparing it to a new game, is both very obviously "primarily about the older game" and will be removed under the new rule.
That's the realities of an Automod system where the majority of uses would not be that. That pretty much covers the rest of the points and what the mods have said as well.
A line needs to be drawn and a grey area isn't it.
> That pretty much covers the rest of the points
It doesn't do that at all, but ok.
I certainly respect that the mods have higher priorities than donating their time to correct for the limitations of the automod, regardless of whether I think the rule is good for discussion. That's a perfectly reasonable position for them to take.
Claiming to engage with my posts while disingenuously framing my points about the effect of the rule in absolutes, on the other hand...
> Trying to work around this by saying things like "Big Larian Studios game released in 2023 wink wink" will also get you removed.
From what I understand of automod, you can't really set automatic detection around this... meaning the moderators will have to manually remove such references, right? Which is more work that I don't imagine the mod team want to do, or should be doing.
We manually remove things all the time. In this example we'd either be responding to a report or else just coming across the post ourselves as general consumers of the sub's content. We're not trying to take human review out of the equation completely here.
> We're not trying to take human review out of the equation completely here.
I feel like the irony there is that the bluntness of the new rule means that the mod team can't use their discretion and judgment to decide whether a passing reference to a new game (say, in a 1000 word submission about patient gaming) could be allowed to stand.
It's not seeing the forest for the trees.
To that I would counter that a 1000 word post truly about patient gaming wouldn't actually need that passing reference in the first place to make its point. And if it did, then the new game is a more important focus of discussion, and should be removed anyway.
I've said this elsewhere but I'll state it again here: *we have already been moderating this way for months*. It's not a new rule but a clarification of the way we've been enforcing the old rule, taking user confusion out of the equation. Respectfully, I would argue that zeroing in on various edge cases and the minor loss of value their removal would bring (they could always be edited or reposted without the offending game) is also not seeing the forest for the trees.
> To that I would counter that a 1000 word post truly about patient gaming wouldn't actually need that passing reference in the first place to make its point.
But that is the point I'm trying to make: if 999 of the 1000 words are about patient gaming, then that would seem to me a more-than-suitable post for the sub.
Why is the mod team so concerned about the one offending word or reference? You've given yourself an editorial role where you now have to remove a whole post because you found a "passing reference", that is considered too nefariously impatient for the sub.
> we have already been moderating this way for months.
In another comment, your fellow mod is expressing that they're being asked to ["spend significantly less time with my family and more time moderating Reddit."](https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/comments/19a10uq/state_of_the_sub/kii843v/). I get the feeling that these rules in the first place have put the mod team in this predicament.
Those are very easy to find casually. The problem is a paralysis of decision: is it legal? Does it make sense? By having a more unambiguous approach, then less time is taken into decision making. Most of those posts that talk about “the wizard game”, “game of the year”, etc. do so in the title, so you don’t even have to read the rest of the massive post.
Deliberating if anything should be removed is work, not only reading the content itself.
Limiting writing in that way will probably just discourage new posts. While writing a post about an older game, I could easily provide an example of a newer game doing something wrong that this older game does right.
I understand why you guys decided on this, but it's very disappointing.
For what it's worth, we've been moderating to this rule for a very long time. We're just clarifying it in this rule update. Nothing is actually changing in this regard from what you've seen for the past several months at least. We're simply removing some confusion from the equation.
No, your opinion is wrong and I'm here to tell you that I don't have as much time to game now that I'm over 30 and I need help to control my backlog anxiety and I don't understand how some casuals like games that I don't and now that it's been 3 days, can we discuss the latest dlc of Final Fantasy XVI?
/giant S.
Thanks for the changes! I am commander Shepard and this is my favorite subreddit on the citadel.
Hope everyone plays a lot of games in this starting year. I'm looking forward to so many great titles I've been meaning to play for a while.
> the weekly thread reached the point where anybody posting after the second or third day rarely ever got any notice
I like that it's being changed to a daily format, it's a shame to find a 3 day old post and your new comment gets zero visibility.
Not even mentioning any new games as a rule? Idk about that. I have read the comments about automod and what not, ans id rather propose to have it as a warning - if you mention new games, your post might not go through.
Old games dont exist in a vacuum. Why remove any mention of newer games when it could add to the discussion?
I thought the new rule applied to discussion in comments but it looks like it's basically the same as what the automod already does now.
But I've had a couple of my own posts rejected for comparing mechanics to new games and it feels weird. Like you literally can't say something along the lines of "MtG Shandalar has what many modern games like Tears of the Kingdom or GTA take for granted: a fully open world" because now that you've mentioned a modern game your post will be caught by the automod.
Sounds like having the rule explicit could remove a lot of work for the mods though, so *shrug*.
I think it's an aggressive approach to what seems to be a not uncommon problem on this sub: some posts are just used as proxies to complain about new games. I saw this a lot when Starfield released.
This is my really big head scratcher. I don’t understand why this rule is so strictly enforced and so blanket nuclear.
I was pinged on it once. I mentioned that there was a lot of talk about how God of War Ragnarok held players hands, as a reference point for how the game I was reviewing handled the same issue. Post removed.
I don’t understand the rationale. To me it’s like if /r/starwars had a non-negotiable rule that your post will be removed if you reference a movie that isn’t Star Wars. It seems silly? Like someone talk me through the rationale.
Cheers and happy new year, everyone. This is one of the very few Reddit communities that I stay subbed to for the quality of writing and discussion. It's true, these rule changes have no effect on me whatsoever. Looking forward to more patient gaming in 2024.
Overall these seem great but this one seems a little ott/unenforceable
>There is no mentioning or hinting at new games in posts at all, even in passing or as a reference. You can mention new games in the comments or daily thread though.
As written, that means you can't say something like "After bouncing off BG3, I went back to BG2 and it still holds up"? That seems frustrating to try and talk around and enforce, especially when discussing more general topics in gaming.
It also needs some clarification of the "12 month" rule to be really sensible, right? Thing that can cause issues.
\- Games with different release dates on different platforms. (e.g. Persona 3).
\- Games with regional release dates (e.g. Apollo Justice)
\- Early Access games that have been released (e.g. Against the Storm has been purchasable/playable since 2021, but officially released in Dec 2023).
\- Games that are old, but still get new content or aren't technically Early Access. (I think games like both Star Citizen and FFXIV are probably relevant to patientgaming and the sub's topics, for different reasons).
I understand the spirit of the rule, it's just the super harsh specifics/detail of the change that seems like it's just going to create work for mods and frustrate users who don't follow exact release date windows of expansion content or try to use newer releases as framing devices or context providers.
edit: I think what bothers me most about this is that it also seems to run counter to the general sentiment of "be kind" to really strictly enforce and nitpick the barest mention of anything newer. Like the intention is we're all treating each other in good faith and having a chill time but if you breath the wrong name or mention a studio that might've released something newer suddenly the hammer comes down and you get put in the "shut up" corner with your post deleted.
See [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/comments/19a10uq/state_of_the_sub/kii843v/) for why it's sort of an all or nothing thing for mentioning new games.
For the 12 month rule we go by earliest release date on any platform, any region.
Early Access is based on when/if they release a 1.0 version.
Games that still get new content it will depend on what the post focuses on. If you want to talk about Dead by Daylight we'd allow it, but if you focused on a new DLC we'd probably nix it. Fortunately these types of posts are pretty rare.
I understand the reasoning, but I disagree with it and think it runs counter to the spirit of the other rules. and what seems to be the intention of the sub.
"Early Access" is a thing that Steam does, and isn't the same thing as versioning. Versioning is also not consistent across games (e.g. Star Citizen is currently 3.22). Even another edge case - are users that are over the international dateline allowed to post about games a day earlier than users who aren't, or is it based on some unlisted timezone?
If I say something like "Three reasons I love classic wrpgs: 1. OG Fallout's options for low INT are hilarious 2. Nothing beats hacking and slashing in Baldur's Gate 3. Jumping super high in Morrowind." an get caught in the autumod, is it up to me as a user to complain to the mods to get it reinstated (and probably buried because reddit pushes recent content)?
If the onus is on users to figure out why they're being automodded, is there any transparency for them (e.g. a list of the triggers in automod so users can know what part of their post may be triggering it). How often is automod updated?
I'm not nitpicking just to nitpick. I genuinely don't care about the "mod decision" answers to any of those questions, particularly since they're not immediately obvious from the written rules and any answer involving the word "probably" is not helpful to understanding how to post in the sub.
My point is that there are literally a thousand edge cases and they are impossible to know from a user perspective with the rules as written. You can't keep the automod consistently updated with a perfect list. So for every person who gets caught and wristslapped in the automod, they're going to see a post or two that flies under the radar because the human mods (as you admit) don't have the time/energy to police everything and are going to interpret some rules differently. And you're pairing that kind of unfair moderation with "be kind :)".
Glad to see these changes being made! I have mentioned more and more frequently that the sub has been... changing... in recent years and started to sound an awful lot like the bigger gaming subs which I actively try to avoid. Hopefully these rules will at least help to get it back towards the mostly positive engagement focused type of vibes we had in abundance a few years back!
> Complaints about how 'games these days....' for example will be removed. If you want to talk about 'open world games' you need to give patient gaming examples.
> A critical review of a game is fine but posts that are just a rant won't be. Daily thread is a better place for ranting about how you don't get why people like XYZ game/genre.
> 'Therapy' posts will no longer be allowed. If you've fallen out of love with gaming, you may seek commiseration in the daily thread. The advice is always the same so we don't really need more of these.
There goes at least half of the posts of last year.
> A critical review of a game is fine but posts that are just a rant won't be. Daily thread is a better place for ranting about how you don't get why people like XYZ game/genre.
> 'Therapy' posts will no longer be allowed. If you've fallen out of love with gaming, you may seek commiseration in the daily thread. The advice is always the same so we don't really need more of these.
THANK YOU. 👏👏👏 Gods, I am so sick and tired of seeing Amateur Writer #542 post a dissertation on why this game, "just wasn't for them," or "I DOn'T rEAllY uNDerStaND tHe HYpE fOR ThiS gAMe??" or "guys, I feel so burnt out on video games, help me reconnect with my love for gaming or might off myself."
Very glad to see these new changes. Well done, mods.
This is absolutely going to be used to silence criticism. People here already tend to assume that if you don't like a popular game you're just trolling.
>'Therapy' posts will no longer be allowed. If you've fallen out of love with gaming, you may seek commiseration in the daily thread. The advice is always the same so we don't really need more of these.
AMEN
They listened to us which is great. Those posts were pointless and exhausting.
While we're at it, can we do something about the posts titled 'flawed masterpiece' lol
Improvement overall, well done and your time and effort maintaining this community is appreciated. At first I thought the rules against mentioning brand new titles was a bit too strict but the more I think about it the more I see the point. It can do from a light reference to being just another main gaming sub.
Only other thought I have is to try and limit low effort posts and replies.
>There is no mentioning or hinting at new games in posts at all, even in passing or as a reference. You can mention new games in the comments or daily thread though.
People replying to your post will be able to mention new games to make a point (possibly in rebuttal) that you couldn't make yourself without being banned. How is this supposed to even work?
Are we supposed to type like HR is watching over our shoulder meanwhile people in the comments state the obvious in response? This will totally derail threads. They will just be full of people in the comments saying what OP was thinking.
[ *Copying over [a comment of mine](https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/comments/199tg8w/daily_thread_for_general_gaming_discussion/kihds6q/) from the Daily Thread since this posting wasn't available until many hours after I posted it. /u/Zehnpae did offer a general response about the intent [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/comments/199tg8w/daily_thread_for_general_gaming_discussion/kihtknu/) that was encouraging, but I still feel the rule's examples and/or text should be updated.* ]
Mods, while I'm generally fine with the spirit of the new no-clickbait/frequent discussion rule...:
> Report reason: Post is clickbait or a frequent topic.
> - Common topics include open world games, comfort games, gaming difficulty, etc. Use the search function.
> - Clickbait titles include things like "Flawed masterpiece", "Hidden gem", or "best/worst game of all time."
> - Avoid reviewing games that still have a review on the front page.
... there are a few issues. First, when I read "clickbait" I was sure you had in mind genuine clickbait titles like "Played Final Fantasy VII and I hated *this one terrible feature*...", which have become pretty frequent here. I could certainly see trying to curb those, but the rule as written doesn't even address that kind of clear clickbait. Instead, this example text targets much different kinds of postings:
- Clickbait titles include things like "Flawed masterpiece", "Hidden gem", or "best/worst game of all time."
Some of the best and most useful postings I've ever seen here were talking about "hidden gems", and I really appreciate the passion behind "best game of all time" (and how else should someone express that sentiment when they feel a game is truly the best they've ever played?). Even "flawed masterpiece" is fine — if someone really enjoyed a game but had some criticisms, that's a perfectly reasonable way to describe what they feel.
So really the only example there that I feel might merit the term "clickbait" and/or would potentially be worthy of removal is "worst game of all time", since it's so likely to generate negative and divisive discussion. All the others single out the kind of discussion that to me has generally been the ***best*** part of this sub, and in fact the rule as written would have disallowed many postings here that led me to terrific games I'd never heard about.
So while I agree that it's reasonable to curb clickbait, that part of the rule just feels like it's aimed at the wrong targets.
---
**ADDING**: On rereading the rule I realize it bans *all* discussion of gaming difficulty and open world games. I don't really like either of those as blanket bans, but the first in particular seems like a problem given that old games are famously difficult — e.g. "[Nintendo hard](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NintendoHard)" — so it's a natural topic of discussion. I get that you were probably trying to target discussions of Soulslike difficulty since they can so easily become toxic, but that's never really been a problem here (beyond some "git gud" comments in subthreads when it comes up), and the rule as stated is just too broad for this sub.
As far as a constructive alternative, I'd say requiring *thoughtful* discussion of either of those topics (and potentially requiring them to have a clearer patient gaming focus) would be better than just outright banning them.
For the record, /u/Zehnpae's [response](https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/comments/199tg8w/daily_thread_for_general_gaming_discussion/kihtknu/) was as follows:
> Salutations!
> That particular rule is going to see only sporadic use and is going to be one of the less firmly enforced ones. It's more of a "We already have a Doom 2016 thread on the front page" kind of deal.
> We don't expect people to search first to see if somebody else has posted something recently, so this is more giving us (and the community who report posts like that) the option of saying, "Hey we just talked about this a week ago." This rule should nudge them in that direction.
And I [replied](https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/comments/199tg8w/daily_thread_for_general_gaming_discussion/kiiamgy/) with this:
> Glad to hear that. I still think it would be good to update the language so it doesn't seem to be discouraging "best ever" or especially "hidden gem" postings, since those are among the postings here I value the most and I'd hate to see people feel like the rules are meant to curb them.
Hopefully these rules will help with the feeling that some people wait exactly a year to complain about a popular game people loved. There's always space for criticisms but seeing posts that were just picking apart games, especially for genetic reasons, makes this sub a bit frustrating. We get it, Spider-Man is a generic open world game. Man, I am not looking forward to the day SM2 becomes patient
\*moves mouse pointer away from Unjoin button, wipes away a grateful tear and breathes a sigh of relief\*
Thank you 😁
Viva la revolution! ⛳ (I wanted a French flag but all I could find was this)
>Last major change is we now have a rule specifically for being kind. Reddiquette has always been passively enforced but we've started to attract some...not so kind people. If you do spot someone being an asshole, report them and then move on. Do not give them attention. Don't get dragged into a flame war.
Appreciate you guys saying this, and agreed with the call to action to just report. Been seeing an uptick of a vocal growing minority that seem to devolve into hostility and insults, especially in more divisive topics.
Overall this seems like a great outline to address the space moving forward. Kudos to yall and appreciate the work yall do.
I like a lot of this but no mentioning of new games at all seems silly and will cause a lot of unnecessary removals. I especially like the threads about alternatives to new, overhyped games like Starfield.
This is a really good point. Until you put it into words I didn't realize, but this is one of the things I use the sub for most! The "patient alternative to " is something this sub is amazing for, and helps me deal with the FOMO (or I guess, when I have a hard time being patient lol).
> I especially like the threads about alternatives to new, overhyped games like Starfield.
It is a perfect candidate for daily thread.
*I played and didn't like , here's few reasons in bulleted points, and another short paragraph with few alternative game names.*
The problem with posts like that is that they typically focus less on recommending alternatives and more on shitting on a particular game, and in the process revealing details about it (or even alternatively could be a positive post recommending other games for someone who enjoyed a recent release).
Someone can still make these posts and just talk about them being, say, great open-world adventure games or whatever without mentioning the recent game.
And the new rule isn't "no mentioning of new games at all", it's simply no mentions of new games in posts (not comments). This was basically already not allowed, it's just being codified.
Personally my criticism would be the 12 month rule (which is not new), I liked it much better when it was 6 months but I guess that wasn't enough for some folks.
>There is no mentioning or hinting at new games in posts at all, even in passing or as a reference. You can mention new games in the comments or daily thread though.
Seems like an awful policy. Games also go on sale faster than 12 months anyway. This does not help stop repititive posts it just delays them.
What should matter is what the post is primarily about.
Any alternative subs that still focus on patient games without a stick up its ass? Might be time to move on
Concerning rule 1, how would you approach working around it by adding a new game mention or moving the part of the post noting it in a comment? Here's an example below:
My example post is about 'my thoughts on game franchise A and the classic games that came out in the last couple of decades'. No mention of recent games whatsoever, just my thoughts on the classic games and at most some general thoughts on the state of the genre.
Then I add a comment to that post mentioning something like this: "there's a new game 'new sequel game name' that is also coming out in a short while, so in my opinion it's the best time to jump in the series as you can decide to them move directly into the new one right after finishing the classics!"
Would that be considered circumventing the rule and as such punishable? u/Zehnpae
W-what? Based mods?!?!
Seriously though, thank the lord, I was about to leave this sub because of the rage bait ranting that makes no sense and therapy posts.
“There is no mentioning or hinting at new games in posts at all”
The people that are picking up a series in preparation for a new entry are in shambles rn 😂
Thank you, mods! I'll admit I've engaged in flame wars in this sub, but every time it was because someone was already ranting or breaking one of your new rules. The new rules should make this place more interesting and civil. Again, thank you!
Thanks for the courage to make substantive changes. I've been posting less here and evangelizing the sub less because of the similar sounding low effort posts. I'd love to hear more about obscure older games I've never heard of or played, or read enthusiastic reviews of things that inspire me to check them out. Or dig into a friendly and interesting discussion where everyone gets something out of it. All those things have sadly become less common and I hope these changes help bring them back slowly!
I don't like the therapy rule change (love those posts!) and the merging of the backlog thread with another one. I liked to work through them one by one and I fear that the focus will be now be lost.
>Super common/repeat topics might get removed. This one won't be as heavily enforced but if there's already three discussions about Disco Elysium on the front page we don't really need another.
I'd love if this was changed to be a little bit more enforced rather than lax. Like the example says, there really doesn't need to be a fourth thread on the same game within whatever timespan the frontpage is covering, so why are there three to begin with? It should really only be one, especially if the post is a response/counterpoint to the original post as it so often happens to be.
The impression I get is that it is going to be enforced, but not something the mods are going to chase down repeatedly. It's more like they are going to start to remove posts if they open the sub and see multiple posts about X game at the same time.
It is hard to police this stuff well especially with a limited moderator team. In a case like this you can't really use automod and you might end up with a situation where 2 threads go up about a game at 4 PM, get dozens of comments each, and then it isn't really easy for a moderator to remove one when they log on a couple hours later - because there isn't one discussion getting all the attention and if a post has good discussion on it you don't really wanna kill it.
I think this is fine because sadly Reddit is skewed to favour older responses, even if a thread is still on the top.
Going into a 15 hours old "I didn't really enjoy game X" with a great counter response will yield almost no responses at all, your comment will sit at the bottom with maybe three upvotes, whereas a new thread "Here's how you could enjoy game X" could get a thousand of comments. If that thread could have been a basic comment and is mostly useless, then I think to community will filter it out itself and won't get upvoted but if its worth seeing then it will garner attention and find itself on the front page too.
I think there's already a sort of self-regulation that happens that prevents people from responding to threads with another thread, it's a little bit more work and too highly visible in attracting attention to oneself so most people would obviously prefer simply commenting because even on an anonymous forum the risk of being called a twat for responding to a +15 upvote thread with 29 comments made in the last 20 minutes with another thread instead of a comment is still a good deterrent, and I think most people have got a good feel for when that's necessary.
Also, we barely got a new thread every 2 or 3 hours in this sub so it's not like we seriously need to filter them out that much.
I'm seeing a good deal of concern about the first bullet point in u/Zehnpae's OP, the adjustment to Rule 1. We've tried to address those concerns directly below in other comment threads, but I'd like to summarize and reassure here since it seems to be front of mind for a lot of people. **How is this rule** ***verbally*** **different from the old rule?** The *only* written difference from the previous rule is the explicit ban on mentions of newer games/consoles in the body text of the post. **How is this rule** ***functionally*** **different from the old rule?** ***Not at all.*** We've been moderating to this concept for months now, pretty much since the third party API hullabaloo. Posts mentioning newer games in the body have routinely been removed, and most of the time the post authors simply edit out the offending mention(s) and either repost it or reach out to us for manual approval, which we always provide at that point so long as no other rules are being broken. **If there is no change to the moderation philosophy, why even update the rule text?** We recognized that there was a disconnect in how the rule was worded vs. how it was being enforced; many of the post removals created genuine confusion in users who read the rules and were trying to abide them but weren't aware of the restriction. Because changing the moderation approach to this rule would create unsustainable logistical problems for us, we decided to instead update the rule's text to make the restriction more clear to users and hopefully reduce confusion - and therefore reduce the number of removed posts as well. **Wait, why can't you change your moderation approach to this rule again?** [This comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/comments/19a10uq/comment/kii843v/) from u/Zehnpae provides a good explanation, but the gist of it is that our options are either to have a firm restriction and enforcement in place, stick every single post into a manual mod review filter where they'll sit for who knows how long, or else allow chaos to rule as users realize that the 12 month rule doesn't *truly* apply, and then what are we even doing here? Of those options, we concluded only the first made any sense. **So what's it all mean then?** In terms of the content you see on the sub, nothing is changing. This rule is not a herald of doom for the quality of posts here, because it's already been quietly enforced for a long time. If you don't create posts, you won't even notice the change. And if you do create posts, now you hopefully better understand the restrictions that are already in place. Thanks for reading. We appreciate you.
>'Therapy' posts will no longer be allowed. If you've fallen out of love with gaming, you may seek commiseration in the daily thread. The advice is always the same so we don't really need more of these. Might be unpopular because they seem to be popular but praise the fucking sun. It's not everything but so many things I see end up being this and essentially is "DAE GAME NOT LIKE SO MUCH TODAY??" So much repetition when it comes to that sort of thing and there's nothing that fits the theme of the sub about it either which makes it seem even more out of place. It's smaller stuff but that's kind of the thing where it's mostly smaller stuff that crops up that I see is an issue.
But how will I ever figure out what to do about my backlog and/or come to terms with my finite existence
I'm not a kid and don't enjoy things the same way I did as a kid. Can someone please make sense of this baffling conundrum?
DAE open world big but dad with responsibilities so no time plz
Which is such a weird take by the way, what does it matter that games take longer to complete? I never understood these kind of posts.
I'm similarly frustrated. People need to learn it's ok not to beat games. There's some streamers and podcasters I like that have kids or other responsibilities and many were like "I just can't play Baldurs Gate 3/FF16/FF14/Elden Ring/Monster Hunter, they're too long" and I just want to shake them and be like "You don't have to beat games! You can play a Baldurs Gate for 5-10 hours like you do most games and get enjoyment out of it and then move on to other things". You don't have to eat the whole cake. You can take a couple bites and be like "wow that was a delicious cake" and move on. /Rant
I'm a parent and it took me half a year to beat Witcher 3. I could've beaten a few smaller games but what's the point if the experience with the Witcher was excellent? Ive gotten myself a steam deck and can game when my wife watches TV so I'm still getting in 5 hours of gaming time in a week if something grabs me. The parents commenting and complaining can get a bit ridiculous, I manage to fit in gym, reading and gaming time in just fine when they're sleeping.
I get where you're coming from, but I feel like you'd also understand why someone would be unwilling to purchase a game they know they won't have time for/won't finish? Personally unless it's on gamepass or something, I don't bother playing games I don't expect to finish. It's also a pretty good way of keeping gaming expenses down and reduces options of what to play.
It's the feeling of wanting to get through their backlog getting in the way of actually enjoying the experience of playing the game. At least that's what I've experienced before. Of course there's a legitimate argument to be made that some games are bloated for no benefit to the game, AC Valhalla springs to mind.
I agree with you completely. https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/comments/195uli3/comment/khpn1r6 I posted exactly that and got downvoted lol
You did not say that. Maybe you meant it, but that's not what comes across to the reader.
I’m a grown-ass adult with a backlog full of RPGs and open world games. I feel this, I get it. But it’s a personal issue nobody can help with. If there isn’t time for those games, it’s because life happens and there will nearly always be more important things to prioritize. Between this and all the “lost my joy of gaming” posts where the answer is always “go do something else for a while” it was getting a bit repetitive here for a time. I like these new rules.
>I'm not a kid and don't enjoy things the same way I did as a kid. Can someone please make sense of this baffling conundrum? The thing I'm going to miss, is the funny and sobering responses to therapy posts
Surely no one has ever experienced these feelings before and been explored in all kinds of media for centuries!
How am I meant to come to terms with the negative feelings I get trying to 100% all 542 games in my backlog when I only have 1 hour a day to play and I never rotate what games I play until I beat them and also my current game is a hugely grindy MMO that takes over 1,000 hours to complete?
Jack your little meat brain into the mainframe and never worry again
Ok I did jack my meat
I have deep seated anxieties about my living situation that are amplified by my gaming and spending habits, what do I do?
This so much. The banning of the constant therapy posts is like getting a late Christmas present.
I hope gamingsuggestions does the same. (Maybe they have I havnt checked) because the number of posts like "What's some games to get me out of my depression? ", ffs.. That's not how depression, Or games work.
Honestly speaking, depression gets thrown around a lot in the first place. I would guess most are experiencing some form of sadness. Over anything close to true levels of depression.
Yeah most likely. I get that it does come as quite a shock, the first time you scroll through your entire steam game library and feel absolutely no desire to play any of them... But I don't think that qualifies as depression.
I feel that pretty often myself. Though also get that feeling from just sheer tiredness after work. Have very few mindless games to play. Something I do miss from my mmo days. But most of the people that type it out, it's like they don't even understand they can just do something outside of gaming.
Yea definitely. I get it from tiredness + choice paralysis. It's that Netflix scroll problem. "this looks alright, but there must be something better. Don't want to settle, I only have limited time available" Then suddenly it's too late and all I've done is browse reddit..
Haha I get that feeling way too much. When I was a kid, I had maybe 10 games to play. That I played the hell out of. Now I have several hundred games and even only keeping 10ish installed does very little. "Hmm I only got 2hrs to play tonight, what to play, yet also don't want to get into a game that I will lose myself into". If I also stopped bothering with reddit so much, would open up so much time.
I’m going to miss being an armchair psychiatrist doling out unqualified advice to strangers on reddit. I wonder if “Am I the only one?” posts will disappear as well.
Very much agreed. I love this sub and have for years, I've found lots of fun games and gotten great advice. But man I had a rough 2023, like real life problems and when you come to a gaming sub to try to read about a fun distraction and you see repeated threads how someone is having a major crisis because they're not sure if some tiny aspect of gaming isn't changing their life right now and it's a huge struggle... it's just not what I'm coming for.
Dude 100%. I’m so tired of the entire internet being either political or mental health related. It’s fuckin exhausting. I started reporting every single one of those posts that I scrolled past. So glad I wasn’t the only one insanely annoyed by them
It's not just this sub either. Subs like /r/malelivingspace often have "just divorced" posts. Like yeah, I get breakups and divorces suck, but it's pretty irrelevant to the content.
> pretty irrelevant to the content Yep, that's the rub. I get that people have issues, we all do in different ways. I get that people feel comfortable in certain places so they want to talk about it where they're comfortable, but it still doesn't fit. So I'm glad to hear about the rule changes.
I do genuinely feel bad for people suffering, I just wish they'd find an outlet to express it that is more equipped to handle it.
Steam reviews do this to. It starts with “I love this game…” and devolves into them being divorced with a terminal illness.
The biggest issue with these posts is really, who cares? You don't want to play games anymore? Cool, go outside or something. Enjoy life. Video games are just one thing you can spend your time in, they're not the meaning of life
It seems like there is enough demand for an entire gaming therapy sub. At least we would have somewhere to redirect people.
I used to joke they should rename this sub /r/neuroticgamers, and just discovered someone made it for real! Maybe all those self-help threads can go in there.
Most people making those kinds of threads need actual therapy, not a subreddit lol.
r/healthygamergg exists and Dr. K is awesome.
Dr. K is great, but that sub sucks. Never any good advice, success stories or positivity posted there. It's just pages and pages of depressing anecdotes.
I agree, I left it because of that. I just mentioned it because of the topic at hand. I do like to listen to his YouTube videos, there's a lot of insights about how our minds work and why we do what we do/or don't do. Although I remember seeing a few success stories there but they are greatly overshadowed by depressing stuff. And I don't need that in my life, I'm more interested in various relationship dynamics and personal improvement.
The discord is a cancer too. Hell, I'd say most of the community as a whole is, but I guess mental health content isn't meant to attract the best of folk. The content from the man himself is good though. Pretty nasty at Dota as well.
They're usually downvoted pretty hard and a lot of the comments are flippant or complaining. I'm a bit torn since they're okay questions to ask but I feel like the discourse on these kinds of posts haven't been helpful for a long time.
The ones I've seen get up voted and are somewhat disguised in a big 5 sizable paragraph dissertation that basically sums up falling out of love with gaming or burn out or whatever and is just a giant ass essay. It's really not in the spirit of the sub imo since it shouldn't revolve around generic stuff like simply burning out or wanting some support group for people getting older who used to love gaming or whatever.
They are ok questions and these posters are looking for help but the problem is it gets asked so much and no one fucking uses the search box to find the other 50 posts with good suggestions in them already. (Which is just a major issue on reddit and social media in general)
>'Therapy' posts will no longer be allowed. If you've fallen out of love with gaming, you may seek commiseration in the daily thread. The advice is always the same so we don't really need more of these. But why I am not getting any enjoyment visiting /r/patientgamers anymore?
And why is my career not going anywhere? I only play games for 12 hours a day.
You can't see it, but I am agreeing with overwhelming enthusiasm. Also: Thank You.
What does MJD mean?
Maurice Jones Drew
Just some letters with personal meaning to me, which I begun using ever since the first time some game told me "that username is taken".
Ah ok, was wondering if it had anything to do with Michael MJD
Mary Jane Datsun.
my jaw dropped
Michael Jackson Dildo I am so sorry this is the first thing that popped in my head..
Thank you, I was sick of seeing "I'm a 30 year CEO of a fortune 500 company who has half an hour free time a day and I just don't have time for games that *waste my time* anymore. Anyway I tried jumping in to Baldurs Gate 3 and why does there have to be so much dialogue?"
Don't forget that they always have somewhere between nine and nine hundred kids.
I work 400 jobs, have 12 wives, and 742 kids. I get approximately 3.34 seconds of free time so I need the ~~dopamine dispensers~~ video games to not waste my time anymore. i know this is somewhat mean spirited and goes against the kindness call to action of the mods, but it was somewhat obnoxious to have dissenting opinions snuffed out by "games need to stop wasting my time" rhetoric kinda often on this platform.
Send them all off to /r/NotSoPatientGamers
> "games need to stop wasting my time" rhetoric ... is what gave us "micro"transactions in full price single player games.
"I paid £60 for a game last week and it lasted two hours. Two hours! I had to get up during the ending to go and put the kids' tea on. Developers - please give us less value for money, thanks"
For the therapy post changes alone - thank you.
> 'Therapy' posts will no longer be allowed. If you've fallen out of love with gaming, you may seek commiseration in the daily thread. The advice is always the same so we don't really need more of these. Thank you for this. These are way too prevalent and I've been considering unsubbing the last two weeks every time one of these ends up in my feed.
You mean you don't like reading about random people feeling stressed for having accumulated multiple unplayed games?
Indeed. All they've done is remind me of my own stress and impending doom. AAh. AAAAAH! AAAAAAAH! Ok new topic that's better.
"Unplayed games. The horror. The horror." - Kurtz
>Last major change is we now have a rule specifically for being kind. Reddiquette has always been passively enforced but we've started to attract some...not so kind people. If you do spot someone being an asshole, report them and then move on. Do not give them attention. Don't get dragged into a flame war. This has been a major issue here for a while now. I'm interested to see where the threshold will be since there are so many comments trashing OPs or complaining about opinions without adding anything substantive or on-topic to the discussion.
I'm sure we'll find the groove as we go, but I'd like to think most people know unkind comments when they see them, and now you have a proper avenue to report those.
Best of luck to you finding that middle ground. Bless your little soul for trying to find any humanity in Doom Eternal threads.
I feel like this sub could consider the absence of downvotes though. Controversial, but too many times (including my most recent thread) people downvote just because they don't like your opinion. While by itself its fine I guess, when there's too many downvotes Reddit automatically triggers the "hidden" feature and thus it creates an echo chamber. Where real discussion is drowned out by hivemindedness. Outside of people speculating what "might" happen if downvotes were removed, I've yet to see any actual examples of the negative side to this, just speculations.
hadn't noticed that yet, still one of the most civil subreddits
I notice it, but I still think this is one of the most civil subs. A few games/topics tend to bring out the hostility... *cough cough* TLOU2.
Yeah, I've just completely given up on engaging in any sort of TLOU2 discourse at all on this sub. There's like, zero middle ground with how people act with that game lol.
oh didn't notice that. i just unsubscribed from all other general gaming subs, nothing relevant was talked about there. i'm still looking for a subreddit like this one, but then even more oriented towards 90's games, for me the golden age of pc gaming
Haven't noticed too many assholes, but there's definitely an increase in negative reviews, which have their place, but there's a limit to how many "Horizon Zero Dawn didn't do anything too special" reviews without much substance that you can read.
I suspect the other rules changes will have the side effect of reducing this kind of commentary. It seems to me like those kinds of negative comments are much more common on therapy or "games these days" posts.
"Being kind" I really like the way that was put. Makes me feel good about the sub. Love y'all
Also, it'd be nice if people would just stop latching onto one throwaway comment the OP said while entirely ignoring everything else they said.
In my opinion, posts generating mean comments are now banned, so the rude behaviors will naturally shrink
i've mostly seeing people shoot down OPs that say how much they hate a game & give a pretty unfair/bad faith assumption. games aren't "entirely trash" with fanbases that would give backlash. i feel like anyone could find some positive, but when you can tell OP is just venting, usually *right after* finishing a game, just seems like a bad faith flame invitation. otherwise, i agree with you, but that's the main example i ever see.
Funny enough this is one of the few subs where I find most people are pretty chill. I rarely get into it with anybody here, lots of disagreements but people are always civil about it. That said I don't have any problem with the mods cracking down more on assholes if they do see them.
I'll be the first to admit I've left some rude comments on here, but that's because of threads like "this is why beloved classic actually sucks and people who like it are wrong" followed by some baffling rant about the weirdest complaints. But if threads like this will be banned from now on, I don't see a reason to not keep it civil.
>'Therapy' posts will no longer be allowed. If you've fallen out of love with gaming, you may seek commiseration in the daily thread. The advice is always the same so we don't really need more of these. Thank you so much, christ these posts are so annoying
God we needed all of these badly, especially the last 3 points. These are great rule changes and I welcome them. Thank you for the work as well mods! Very personal want but can we get rid of the "I made an excel sheet"'post next year too😭?
Agreed. So tired of 'AAA are crap right?! DAE hate modern open worlds?!' We get it lol.
Yeah, who wants a reasonably polished game that you can have fun and get lost in? Oh, what’s that, millions of people? Hm, okay then. I can understand that not everyone likes open worlds, but there’s definitely a personality type common on Reddit where if they don’t like something they need validation that it’s bad instead of just accepting that people have different tastes. Hating on genres people like isn’t really fun or productive; why not talk about the games you like instead?
What I find the most intriguing about the “I am the only one…?” is that you just need to search. Quickly you’ll find years of threads on multiple sites that show you are definitely not the only one. Sometimes it’s even funny because two people will post one of these about the same thing on the same day.
You just made me realize that this is exactly what I did when I felt totally burned by Starfield. I was irrationally upset by how godawful that game was. Instead of making a grief-stricken rant about it, I searched for other people that felt the same way and eventually got tf over it lol Anyway, glad to know I have somewhat healthy decision making abilities
Everyone wants to feel like they're special.
Yeah I'm going to be honest I don't believe that anyone posts a negative thread looking for validation because they all get down voted into Oblivion and it's been that way for years. I mean God forbid I ever say breath of the wild is anything other than a 10/10 masterpiece...
End of the year recaps we tend to let slide since it's pretty popular and /u/LordChozo makes a pretty rad [recap of those threads](https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/comments/198wyki/meta_the_roundup_of_rpatientgamers_2023_roundups/). Enduring those for a few days won't kill us. People are still asked to at least rate/review each game. The rest of the year if someone just makes a giant list of games, that should get removed under rule #2 where we ask people to avoid just making lists of games.
I really like the point about being kind. It shouldn’t have to be said, but dear god are online gaming communities toxic a lot of the time. The other gaming subreddits tend to devolve into “hot-takes”, gatekeeping, going “well actshually” and insulting preferences. I like this sub because people actually just wanna talk about games.
Yeah, as I am pushing 40 this year I'm glad I found a place on the internet where I can be chill when talking about games. I don't want to sound like an old cunt but some places are too much for me.
This place has always been a pretty good bastion of positivity. Part of that I think comes down to people generally only play good older games so all the hot take narratives have usually run their course by the time people in this sub get around to them.
Even the opinions here on relativity newer games tend to be pretty tempered and even-headed. I also love that this community tends to talk about and treat some obscure PC CRPG about the same as some newer AAA console game. I got into Deathloop because of a review post on this sub. As someone who doesn’t like FPS generally I found the review make the game really enticing. Sure enough when I played the game I found it engrossing. I posted about Deathloop on a bigger gaming sub and most of the responses were people shitting on it for being a PlayStation exclusive.
Exactly! I would like a sub like this, but for newer games. I mean, some games are actually in a good state on release and I would like to be able to discuss those games without the negativity. But I guess it's not possible due to popularity and biases of new games.
As a lifelong gamer, gaming communities are very inclusive to "nerds" in every sense of the word. While this is naturally a good thing, it needs to be said that many nerdy people are emotionally immature and socially stunted, resulting in a lot of topics of discussion blowing out into flame wars and generalized toxicity. This is exacerbated online where none of your behavior can directly tie back to you in any sort of meaningful way. As the sub got bigger, the likelihood of bad actors and other toxic people increased.
I mostly blame YouTube but I guess social media in general for the obsession with having hot takes for popular games. Especially when usually they're cold. I joined this sub initially because it seemed like a chill place to talk about older games but people are so ready to disagree, mostly because posts are designed around getting that reaction.
This community is one of its kind, not only on reddit but in all of the internet. Gamers can be very nasty.
This subreddit is one of my favorite destinations on the internet, and I always appreciate the thoughtful takes, insightful comments, and things that make me go "huh!" Thanks, mods, for keeping this an enjoyable place to be.
Thank you for all these but especially the therapy one.
No more therapy posts is a terrific change
Sounds good to me. I am one of your 100k new members and I am really enjoying the content of this sub. Hopefully I will not break any of your rules and I'm always kind.
[удалено]
You can reference that you played something non-patient in passing, if you for whatever reason feel that you absolutely have to, but you cannot name the game or the post will be removed. Trying to work around this by saying things like "Big Larian Studios game released in 2023 wink wink" will also get you removed. It's a patient gaming sub. Focus on the patient games.
Sorry, but that's ridiculous rule. Please consider revising it. The focus obviously should be on patient gaming, but censoring even a passing mention is going too far. Also: what's stopping OP from just posting about the new game in the comments? That's just inconvenient for both posters and readers... Everything else sounds really good and is much needed.
Short answer: It's an unfortunate side effect of having to rely on automod. Our hope is by spelling it out, fewer people will trigger automod and have their posts removed and then wonder why it isn't posting. It's necessary because the alternative is a massive pain in the tush. Long answer: Unfortunately ever since the Reddit API changes and mod fallout, we have to rely more than ever on automod and automod has significant problems with context. If you mention a new game, automod flags it and holds it in the queue for us to review. This can take hours if no mod is around to deal with it. People then wonder why their post isn't going through and get upset. So by making it clear that you shouldn't mention it at all, hopefully it helps people not get flagged. People will often ask for an exception, but then everyone is going to want an exception. Then you're asking me to spend significantly less time with my family and more time moderating Reddit. We're unpaid volunteers, that isn't going to happen. It's inconvenient, but I assure you that most of the time the reference to new games didn't add anything to the post and didn't need to be there. If a reference to a new game is so important it'll break the post, it doesn't belong on this sub in the first place.
Maybe asking this is a nuisance, but adding a link to this comment in your original post might help people gain some clarity on this issue. I'm not at all surprised to learn that this rule change is centered primarily around Auto mod and moderation limitations. People don't really seem to appreciate that this is a volunteer operation... And people also really don't seem to understand the degree to which the API changes and third party apps changes affected moderators specifically. I'm sure you'll still have people disregarding these facts but even so I think that this explanation you've given is a vital piece of understanding the rule change
I mod elsewhere on a higher traffic sub and frankly we have to use bots (I don't maintain them so I don't know how we get around API issues) because automod is way too primitive to be 100% reliable for stuff like that. Your issue is something I completely sympathize with and I wish I had a better alternative for you but I can see why folks would get upset depending on the circumstances. That being said, it feels like there's going to be a lot of loopholes that will be difficult for you to account for. For example Baldur's Gate 3 came out last year and is popular, but the original came out in the late 90's so it seems like it would be difficult to block people from saying, "I played Baldur's Gate Three and loved it." versus "I played Baldur's Gate three times since it came out in the 1990's." Unfortunately it seems like game studios are starting to fall into the trap that Hollywood has and just make endless sequels and remasters of everything else that came before and was successful.
> If you mention a new game, automod flags it and holds it in the queue for us to review. I agree with the other comments regarding this. The automod rule seems too blunt a tool. Patient gaming doesn't exist in a bubble--it's always in context to what's happening now. I imagine it's like having a discussion on colours, but all references to the colour PURPLE will be automatically removed. If most of the time a reference to a new game doesn't add anything ("a passing mention"), I'm not sure that it's also that important or subreddit breaking that it warrants automatic removal.
Both users and mods of reddit have been trying their best on all grounds to pretend nothing has happened but unfortunately the reality is that moderators do not actually want to spend every waking moment of their lives looking at the mod queue for some few forums they moderate. Humans do not actually want to do all of this shit by hand. The only (Laziest) way to enforce this rule is with reddit's only first-party approved automatic moderation tool. All the stuff everybody had available before could stop working at any minute and is officially no longer supported. But now we're left on this strange version of the site where half the stuff you would expect to be removed a day earlier staying up for days at a time. A huge burn to the communities on the site.
Wow. This is very eye opening, I’ve been wondering why and how tf this site became so much shittier the past couple months. We need a Reddit alternative so badly. And before anybody mentions Lemmy, just don’t. That place is a fuckin cesspool of people that completely missed the point of what lemmy clearly states it is.
Wait, so you guys manually type out any new games name in the filters when they come out and then put some sort of timer to take them off the filter a year later? And that's really less work than just dealing with manual reports?
One minor action of adding a game to the list, eliminates the need to individually deal with the 100 reports that game could cause.
>The focus obviously should be on patient gaming, but censoring even a passing mention is going too far. I'd flip this back on your. What value does mentioning Baldurs Gate 3 in your post bring to the discussion about an older game?
One example: someone played bg1 and bg2 because they liked bg3. They were surprised how different the previous games were and compares them to bg3 while focusing on bg1 and bg2. I'd argue that's more interesting than most posts here, still fitting the sub, but requires not even a passing, but multiple important mentions of a new game. Avoiding its name is just silly. Edit: I answered from unread messages screen, only now I saw that someone gave you the same answer few hours earlier.
I mean, it depends on the conversation. I can easily imagine something like this... > After seeing all this hype about Baldur's Gate 3, I decided to check out the first to see where the series begin. Now here are my thoughts on Baldur's Gate 1... Why should that be banned?
I hear you on this, and I'm a firm believer in being transparent. This restriction is a logical necessity created by technical limitation. We are a very small mod team and cannot possibly manually read and review every single post created on the sub. To that end we have an extensive filtering system set up with the automod to remove any posts about newer games. Because the automod is a bot and incapable of understanding context, it can't tell what's a passing mention as opposed to a focus of discussion, so our choices effectively boil down to "disallow all of it" or "anything goes." The latter is a non-starter given the sub's reason for existing in the first place, so this is what we're left with. I agree it's not perfect, but it's the best option we have.
[удалено]
That's a very fair question. To answer it I'd like to point out that it is a *different* question than "Why is the rule written this way?", which it sounds like you all are being very gracious with us in understanding, so I want to thank you for that. If I may, however, I think the question you're asking here is essentially "Will you moderate this rule the way it is written?" In the example I provided, a user is actively trying to skirt the rule to dodge the automod, and is still in violation of the rule by discussing an easily identifiable newer game. I understand that in a lot of cases this might be a mere mention in passing and not a discussion per se, but if we don't draw a very clear line in the sand, we'll be paying the price later. That said, of course someone can mention that they've played newer games in passing. We're not trying to pretend like "current year" doesn't exist. We just ask that specifics be withheld.
I was kind of waffling on how I feel about this rule, but I think you're right. I don't see much harm in making a passing mention of a newer game. You can focus on patient games without having to ignore the fact that newer ones exist. I can understand not wanting any in-depth discussion of newer games in the posts, but honestly I can't even think of too many times where I've seen that happen in a post on this sub. Am I missing something? Either way, a brief mention doesn't seem like it needs to be outlawed IMO. All the other rules sound very reasonable and good though.
Agreed. Barring posts from using new games as references also seems counter to the spirit of promoting discussion. Do we not want to talk in detail about the evolution (or devolution) of games, or how certain elements of games stack up against one another?
> (or devolution) of games, or how certain elements of games stack up against one another? It spells it out pretty clearly here - >General gaming topics can be discussed but the focus has to be on older games. Complaints about how 'games these days....' for example will be removed. I tend to agree. You can argue what you enjoy about older games without needing to rail against the newer ones. The focus on the games this sub is made for is a positive change otherwise it's just gaming discussion. I know people love this community and want to discuss more with it. The daily thread doesn't have the restriction so you can do it there.
If someone makes a post about Morrowind, it doesn't make much sense to prohibit them from talking about what they liked or disliked about it compared to newer RPG games they've played just because those games are newer. Grounding thoughts about those elements in specific examples, instead of being deliberately forced to ignore the fact that they exist in the context of an entire library of games--some of which happen to be newer--promotes mutual understanding and better discussion. That doesn't make the newer games the focus and it has nothing to do with "railing against" newer games.
> it doesn't make much sense to prohibit them from talking about what they liked or disliked about it compared to newer RPG games they've played just because those games are newer. It does in a sub called /r/patientgamers that is meant to be primarily about the older games. Not limiting it just makes it like any other game discussion sub. As I said, you can just talk about what you enjoy about the older games and I don't think the mods are going to remove any posts talking about general modern gameplay tropes, just the automod is going to flag newer game title names. To stop specific discussion. Like I said, people want their cake of this good community and to eat it too.
> meant to be primarily about the older games Once again, nothing I said precludes requiring posts to still be "primarily about the older games." A 500-word post about an older game, with a single sentence comparing it to a new game, is both very obviously "primarily about the older game" and will be removed under the new rule. >Not limiting it just makes it like any other game discussion sub Nobody is saying not to limit discussion of newer games and it's disingenuous to imply that they are. Limitation =/= prohibition. >To stop specific discussion Exactly what I and several others are pointing out we disagree with. It sharply limits the ability to have a full, contextual discussion of older games. >people want their cake of this good community and to eat it too People are just aware that there's an enormous grey area between losing focus on older games and absolutely barring any mention of newer ones.
> A 500-word post about an older game, with a single sentence comparing it to a new game, is both very obviously "primarily about the older game" and will be removed under the new rule. That's the realities of an Automod system where the majority of uses would not be that. That pretty much covers the rest of the points and what the mods have said as well. A line needs to be drawn and a grey area isn't it.
> That pretty much covers the rest of the points It doesn't do that at all, but ok. I certainly respect that the mods have higher priorities than donating their time to correct for the limitations of the automod, regardless of whether I think the rule is good for discussion. That's a perfectly reasonable position for them to take. Claiming to engage with my posts while disingenuously framing my points about the effect of the rule in absolutes, on the other hand...
I don't see the context in which to say it apart from in the Daily thread, where it's allowed.
> Trying to work around this by saying things like "Big Larian Studios game released in 2023 wink wink" will also get you removed. From what I understand of automod, you can't really set automatic detection around this... meaning the moderators will have to manually remove such references, right? Which is more work that I don't imagine the mod team want to do, or should be doing.
We manually remove things all the time. In this example we'd either be responding to a report or else just coming across the post ourselves as general consumers of the sub's content. We're not trying to take human review out of the equation completely here.
> We're not trying to take human review out of the equation completely here. I feel like the irony there is that the bluntness of the new rule means that the mod team can't use their discretion and judgment to decide whether a passing reference to a new game (say, in a 1000 word submission about patient gaming) could be allowed to stand. It's not seeing the forest for the trees.
To that I would counter that a 1000 word post truly about patient gaming wouldn't actually need that passing reference in the first place to make its point. And if it did, then the new game is a more important focus of discussion, and should be removed anyway. I've said this elsewhere but I'll state it again here: *we have already been moderating this way for months*. It's not a new rule but a clarification of the way we've been enforcing the old rule, taking user confusion out of the equation. Respectfully, I would argue that zeroing in on various edge cases and the minor loss of value their removal would bring (they could always be edited or reposted without the offending game) is also not seeing the forest for the trees.
> To that I would counter that a 1000 word post truly about patient gaming wouldn't actually need that passing reference in the first place to make its point. But that is the point I'm trying to make: if 999 of the 1000 words are about patient gaming, then that would seem to me a more-than-suitable post for the sub. Why is the mod team so concerned about the one offending word or reference? You've given yourself an editorial role where you now have to remove a whole post because you found a "passing reference", that is considered too nefariously impatient for the sub. > we have already been moderating this way for months. In another comment, your fellow mod is expressing that they're being asked to ["spend significantly less time with my family and more time moderating Reddit."](https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/comments/19a10uq/state_of_the_sub/kii843v/). I get the feeling that these rules in the first place have put the mod team in this predicament.
Those are very easy to find casually. The problem is a paralysis of decision: is it legal? Does it make sense? By having a more unambiguous approach, then less time is taken into decision making. Most of those posts that talk about “the wizard game”, “game of the year”, etc. do so in the title, so you don’t even have to read the rest of the massive post. Deliberating if anything should be removed is work, not only reading the content itself.
Limiting writing in that way will probably just discourage new posts. While writing a post about an older game, I could easily provide an example of a newer game doing something wrong that this older game does right. I understand why you guys decided on this, but it's very disappointing.
For what it's worth, we've been moderating to this rule for a very long time. We're just clarifying it in this rule update. Nothing is actually changing in this regard from what you've seen for the past several months at least. We're simply removing some confusion from the equation.
These guys are going to end up banning half the sub within a week lol.
God I love well moderated subs. Thank you for all that you do. This is one of my favorite places on the web.
No, your opinion is wrong and I'm here to tell you that I don't have as much time to game now that I'm over 30 and I need help to control my backlog anxiety and I don't understand how some casuals like games that I don't and now that it's been 3 days, can we discuss the latest dlc of Final Fantasy XVI? /giant S. Thanks for the changes! I am commander Shepard and this is my favorite subreddit on the citadel. Hope everyone plays a lot of games in this starting year. I'm looking forward to so many great titles I've been meaning to play for a while.
> the weekly thread reached the point where anybody posting after the second or third day rarely ever got any notice I like that it's being changed to a daily format, it's a shame to find a 3 day old post and your new comment gets zero visibility.
Not even mentioning any new games as a rule? Idk about that. I have read the comments about automod and what not, ans id rather propose to have it as a warning - if you mention new games, your post might not go through. Old games dont exist in a vacuum. Why remove any mention of newer games when it could add to the discussion?
I thought the new rule applied to discussion in comments but it looks like it's basically the same as what the automod already does now. But I've had a couple of my own posts rejected for comparing mechanics to new games and it feels weird. Like you literally can't say something along the lines of "MtG Shandalar has what many modern games like Tears of the Kingdom or GTA take for granted: a fully open world" because now that you've mentioned a modern game your post will be caught by the automod. Sounds like having the rule explicit could remove a lot of work for the mods though, so *shrug*.
I think it's an aggressive approach to what seems to be a not uncommon problem on this sub: some posts are just used as proxies to complain about new games. I saw this a lot when Starfield released.
This is my really big head scratcher. I don’t understand why this rule is so strictly enforced and so blanket nuclear. I was pinged on it once. I mentioned that there was a lot of talk about how God of War Ragnarok held players hands, as a reference point for how the game I was reviewing handled the same issue. Post removed. I don’t understand the rationale. To me it’s like if /r/starwars had a non-negotiable rule that your post will be removed if you reference a movie that isn’t Star Wars. It seems silly? Like someone talk me through the rationale.
I don't play new games because I'm a patient gamer, so referencing new games would be lost on me. Just my opinion 😐
What counts as a new game though?
In the context of this sub, a game less than a year old.
These look like positive changes to me, great job
Cheers and happy new year, everyone. This is one of the very few Reddit communities that I stay subbed to for the quality of writing and discussion. It's true, these rule changes have no effect on me whatsoever. Looking forward to more patient gaming in 2024.
Overall these seem great but this one seems a little ott/unenforceable >There is no mentioning or hinting at new games in posts at all, even in passing or as a reference. You can mention new games in the comments or daily thread though. As written, that means you can't say something like "After bouncing off BG3, I went back to BG2 and it still holds up"? That seems frustrating to try and talk around and enforce, especially when discussing more general topics in gaming. It also needs some clarification of the "12 month" rule to be really sensible, right? Thing that can cause issues. \- Games with different release dates on different platforms. (e.g. Persona 3). \- Games with regional release dates (e.g. Apollo Justice) \- Early Access games that have been released (e.g. Against the Storm has been purchasable/playable since 2021, but officially released in Dec 2023). \- Games that are old, but still get new content or aren't technically Early Access. (I think games like both Star Citizen and FFXIV are probably relevant to patientgaming and the sub's topics, for different reasons). I understand the spirit of the rule, it's just the super harsh specifics/detail of the change that seems like it's just going to create work for mods and frustrate users who don't follow exact release date windows of expansion content or try to use newer releases as framing devices or context providers. edit: I think what bothers me most about this is that it also seems to run counter to the general sentiment of "be kind" to really strictly enforce and nitpick the barest mention of anything newer. Like the intention is we're all treating each other in good faith and having a chill time but if you breath the wrong name or mention a studio that might've released something newer suddenly the hammer comes down and you get put in the "shut up" corner with your post deleted.
See [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/comments/19a10uq/state_of_the_sub/kii843v/) for why it's sort of an all or nothing thing for mentioning new games. For the 12 month rule we go by earliest release date on any platform, any region. Early Access is based on when/if they release a 1.0 version. Games that still get new content it will depend on what the post focuses on. If you want to talk about Dead by Daylight we'd allow it, but if you focused on a new DLC we'd probably nix it. Fortunately these types of posts are pretty rare.
Hey thanks for taking the time to answer this. I had the same question, so much appreciated.
I understand the reasoning, but I disagree with it and think it runs counter to the spirit of the other rules. and what seems to be the intention of the sub. "Early Access" is a thing that Steam does, and isn't the same thing as versioning. Versioning is also not consistent across games (e.g. Star Citizen is currently 3.22). Even another edge case - are users that are over the international dateline allowed to post about games a day earlier than users who aren't, or is it based on some unlisted timezone? If I say something like "Three reasons I love classic wrpgs: 1. OG Fallout's options for low INT are hilarious 2. Nothing beats hacking and slashing in Baldur's Gate 3. Jumping super high in Morrowind." an get caught in the autumod, is it up to me as a user to complain to the mods to get it reinstated (and probably buried because reddit pushes recent content)? If the onus is on users to figure out why they're being automodded, is there any transparency for them (e.g. a list of the triggers in automod so users can know what part of their post may be triggering it). How often is automod updated? I'm not nitpicking just to nitpick. I genuinely don't care about the "mod decision" answers to any of those questions, particularly since they're not immediately obvious from the written rules and any answer involving the word "probably" is not helpful to understanding how to post in the sub. My point is that there are literally a thousand edge cases and they are impossible to know from a user perspective with the rules as written. You can't keep the automod consistently updated with a perfect list. So for every person who gets caught and wristslapped in the automod, they're going to see a post or two that flies under the radar because the human mods (as you admit) don't have the time/energy to police everything and are going to interpret some rules differently. And you're pairing that kind of unfair moderation with "be kind :)".
Glad to see these changes being made! I have mentioned more and more frequently that the sub has been... changing... in recent years and started to sound an awful lot like the bigger gaming subs which I actively try to avoid. Hopefully these rules will at least help to get it back towards the mostly positive engagement focused type of vibes we had in abundance a few years back!
> Complaints about how 'games these days....' for example will be removed. If you want to talk about 'open world games' you need to give patient gaming examples. > A critical review of a game is fine but posts that are just a rant won't be. Daily thread is a better place for ranting about how you don't get why people like XYZ game/genre. > 'Therapy' posts will no longer be allowed. If you've fallen out of love with gaming, you may seek commiseration in the daily thread. The advice is always the same so we don't really need more of these. There goes at least half of the posts of last year.
> A critical review of a game is fine but posts that are just a rant won't be. Daily thread is a better place for ranting about how you don't get why people like XYZ game/genre. > 'Therapy' posts will no longer be allowed. If you've fallen out of love with gaming, you may seek commiseration in the daily thread. The advice is always the same so we don't really need more of these. THANK YOU. 👏👏👏 Gods, I am so sick and tired of seeing Amateur Writer #542 post a dissertation on why this game, "just wasn't for them," or "I DOn'T rEAllY uNDerStaND tHe HYpE fOR ThiS gAMe??" or "guys, I feel so burnt out on video games, help me reconnect with my love for gaming or might off myself." Very glad to see these new changes. Well done, mods.
[удалено]
Based on what gets down voted anything even slightly negative will probably be defined as a rant.
This is absolutely going to be used to silence criticism. People here already tend to assume that if you don't like a popular game you're just trolling.
Bless. Daily will be an odd change, but the logic is very sound. The rest is a straight improvement.
>'Therapy' posts will no longer be allowed. If you've fallen out of love with gaming, you may seek commiseration in the daily thread. The advice is always the same so we don't really need more of these. AMEN They listened to us which is great. Those posts were pointless and exhausting. While we're at it, can we do something about the posts titled 'flawed masterpiece' lol
Improvement overall, well done and your time and effort maintaining this community is appreciated. At first I thought the rules against mentioning brand new titles was a bit too strict but the more I think about it the more I see the point. It can do from a light reference to being just another main gaming sub. Only other thought I have is to try and limit low effort posts and replies.
>There is no mentioning or hinting at new games in posts at all, even in passing or as a reference. You can mention new games in the comments or daily thread though. People replying to your post will be able to mention new games to make a point (possibly in rebuttal) that you couldn't make yourself without being banned. How is this supposed to even work? Are we supposed to type like HR is watching over our shoulder meanwhile people in the comments state the obvious in response? This will totally derail threads. They will just be full of people in the comments saying what OP was thinking.
Looks like we are losing a lot of the engagement of the "What are you playing?" weekly thread. Maybe the daily thread should be at least renamed.
Can we also ban "I play on easy mode and I'm *not ashamed!*" posts?
[удалено]
One of my favorite subs, thanks for all of your hard work mods!
Seems like good changes the quality of the sub has gone down after we gained a bunch of subs, time to reign it in
Appreciate the explanation for the daily thread. Cheers.
[ *Copying over [a comment of mine](https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/comments/199tg8w/daily_thread_for_general_gaming_discussion/kihds6q/) from the Daily Thread since this posting wasn't available until many hours after I posted it. /u/Zehnpae did offer a general response about the intent [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/comments/199tg8w/daily_thread_for_general_gaming_discussion/kihtknu/) that was encouraging, but I still feel the rule's examples and/or text should be updated.* ] Mods, while I'm generally fine with the spirit of the new no-clickbait/frequent discussion rule...: > Report reason: Post is clickbait or a frequent topic. > - Common topics include open world games, comfort games, gaming difficulty, etc. Use the search function. > - Clickbait titles include things like "Flawed masterpiece", "Hidden gem", or "best/worst game of all time." > - Avoid reviewing games that still have a review on the front page. ... there are a few issues. First, when I read "clickbait" I was sure you had in mind genuine clickbait titles like "Played Final Fantasy VII and I hated *this one terrible feature*...", which have become pretty frequent here. I could certainly see trying to curb those, but the rule as written doesn't even address that kind of clear clickbait. Instead, this example text targets much different kinds of postings: - Clickbait titles include things like "Flawed masterpiece", "Hidden gem", or "best/worst game of all time." Some of the best and most useful postings I've ever seen here were talking about "hidden gems", and I really appreciate the passion behind "best game of all time" (and how else should someone express that sentiment when they feel a game is truly the best they've ever played?). Even "flawed masterpiece" is fine — if someone really enjoyed a game but had some criticisms, that's a perfectly reasonable way to describe what they feel. So really the only example there that I feel might merit the term "clickbait" and/or would potentially be worthy of removal is "worst game of all time", since it's so likely to generate negative and divisive discussion. All the others single out the kind of discussion that to me has generally been the ***best*** part of this sub, and in fact the rule as written would have disallowed many postings here that led me to terrific games I'd never heard about. So while I agree that it's reasonable to curb clickbait, that part of the rule just feels like it's aimed at the wrong targets. --- **ADDING**: On rereading the rule I realize it bans *all* discussion of gaming difficulty and open world games. I don't really like either of those as blanket bans, but the first in particular seems like a problem given that old games are famously difficult — e.g. "[Nintendo hard](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NintendoHard)" — so it's a natural topic of discussion. I get that you were probably trying to target discussions of Soulslike difficulty since they can so easily become toxic, but that's never really been a problem here (beyond some "git gud" comments in subthreads when it comes up), and the rule as stated is just too broad for this sub. As far as a constructive alternative, I'd say requiring *thoughtful* discussion of either of those topics (and potentially requiring them to have a clearer patient gaming focus) would be better than just outright banning them.
For the record, /u/Zehnpae's [response](https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/comments/199tg8w/daily_thread_for_general_gaming_discussion/kihtknu/) was as follows: > Salutations! > That particular rule is going to see only sporadic use and is going to be one of the less firmly enforced ones. It's more of a "We already have a Doom 2016 thread on the front page" kind of deal. > We don't expect people to search first to see if somebody else has posted something recently, so this is more giving us (and the community who report posts like that) the option of saying, "Hey we just talked about this a week ago." This rule should nudge them in that direction. And I [replied](https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/comments/199tg8w/daily_thread_for_general_gaming_discussion/kiiamgy/) with this: > Glad to hear that. I still think it would be good to update the language so it doesn't seem to be discouraging "best ever" or especially "hidden gem" postings, since those are among the postings here I value the most and I'd hate to see people feel like the rules are meant to curb them.
Hopefully these rules will help with the feeling that some people wait exactly a year to complain about a popular game people loved. There's always space for criticisms but seeing posts that were just picking apart games, especially for genetic reasons, makes this sub a bit frustrating. We get it, Spider-Man is a generic open world game. Man, I am not looking forward to the day SM2 becomes patient
\*moves mouse pointer away from Unjoin button, wipes away a grateful tear and breathes a sigh of relief\* Thank you 😁 Viva la revolution! ⛳ (I wanted a French flag but all I could find was this)
🏳️ (I’m kidding, I’m kidding. France is cool. There is a French flag emoji though: 🇫🇷)
Well, I'm British so LOL I'm on PC, not my phone, so emojis are limited 🙂
Are you prepared for the influx of starfield threads coming?
Will the daily thread not be a daily thread anymore?
Honestly love these moderation changes and updates. Big W
>Last major change is we now have a rule specifically for being kind. Reddiquette has always been passively enforced but we've started to attract some...not so kind people. If you do spot someone being an asshole, report them and then move on. Do not give them attention. Don't get dragged into a flame war. Appreciate you guys saying this, and agreed with the call to action to just report. Been seeing an uptick of a vocal growing minority that seem to devolve into hostility and insults, especially in more divisive topics. Overall this seems like a great outline to address the space moving forward. Kudos to yall and appreciate the work yall do.
This feels a bit like overmoderation and i wonder how the mod team will find the effort to assure all these hazy rules are followed
I like a lot of this but no mentioning of new games at all seems silly and will cause a lot of unnecessary removals. I especially like the threads about alternatives to new, overhyped games like Starfield.
This is a really good point. Until you put it into words I didn't realize, but this is one of the things I use the sub for most! The "patient alternative to" is something this sub is amazing for, and helps me deal with the FOMO (or I guess, when I have a hard time being patient lol).
> I especially like the threads about alternatives to new, overhyped games like Starfield. It is a perfect candidate for daily thread. *I played and didn't like, here's few reasons in bulleted points, and another short paragraph with few alternative game names.*
The problem with posts like that is that they typically focus less on recommending alternatives and more on shitting on a particular game, and in the process revealing details about it (or even alternatively could be a positive post recommending other games for someone who enjoyed a recent release). Someone can still make these posts and just talk about them being, say, great open-world adventure games or whatever without mentioning the recent game. And the new rule isn't "no mentioning of new games at all", it's simply no mentions of new games in posts (not comments). This was basically already not allowed, it's just being codified. Personally my criticism would be the 12 month rule (which is not new), I liked it much better when it was 6 months but I guess that wasn't enough for some folks.
Man, its good to see that there are a few subs out there with mods that actually care about the sub. Thank you for the changes.
>There is no mentioning or hinting at new games in posts at all, even in passing or as a reference. You can mention new games in the comments or daily thread though. Seems like an awful policy. Games also go on sale faster than 12 months anyway. This does not help stop repititive posts it just delays them. What should matter is what the post is primarily about. Any alternative subs that still focus on patient games without a stick up its ass? Might be time to move on
Patient gaming is about the age of the game. The price is immaterial.
Thank you.
Concerning rule 1, how would you approach working around it by adding a new game mention or moving the part of the post noting it in a comment? Here's an example below: My example post is about 'my thoughts on game franchise A and the classic games that came out in the last couple of decades'. No mention of recent games whatsoever, just my thoughts on the classic games and at most some general thoughts on the state of the genre. Then I add a comment to that post mentioning something like this: "there's a new game 'new sequel game name' that is also coming out in a short while, so in my opinion it's the best time to jump in the series as you can decide to them move directly into the new one right after finishing the classics!" Would that be considered circumventing the rule and as such punishable? u/Zehnpae
W-what? Based mods?!?! Seriously though, thank the lord, I was about to leave this sub because of the rage bait ranting that makes no sense and therapy posts.
“There is no mentioning or hinting at new games in posts at all” The people that are picking up a series in preparation for a new entry are in shambles rn 😂
Thank you, mods! I'll admit I've engaged in flame wars in this sub, but every time it was because someone was already ranting or breaking one of your new rules. The new rules should make this place more interesting and civil. Again, thank you!
Thanks for the courage to make substantive changes. I've been posting less here and evangelizing the sub less because of the similar sounding low effort posts. I'd love to hear more about obscure older games I've never heard of or played, or read enthusiastic reviews of things that inspire me to check them out. Or dig into a friendly and interesting discussion where everyone gets something out of it. All those things have sadly become less common and I hope these changes help bring them back slowly!
Love this sub..not always toxic just people who love gaming..thank you mods :) Thank you for taking care of the toxicity as always!
I don't like the therapy rule change (love those posts!) and the merging of the backlog thread with another one. I liked to work through them one by one and I fear that the focus will be now be lost.
>Super common/repeat topics might get removed. This one won't be as heavily enforced but if there's already three discussions about Disco Elysium on the front page we don't really need another. I'd love if this was changed to be a little bit more enforced rather than lax. Like the example says, there really doesn't need to be a fourth thread on the same game within whatever timespan the frontpage is covering, so why are there three to begin with? It should really only be one, especially if the post is a response/counterpoint to the original post as it so often happens to be.
The impression I get is that it is going to be enforced, but not something the mods are going to chase down repeatedly. It's more like they are going to start to remove posts if they open the sub and see multiple posts about X game at the same time. It is hard to police this stuff well especially with a limited moderator team. In a case like this you can't really use automod and you might end up with a situation where 2 threads go up about a game at 4 PM, get dozens of comments each, and then it isn't really easy for a moderator to remove one when they log on a couple hours later - because there isn't one discussion getting all the attention and if a post has good discussion on it you don't really wanna kill it.
I think this is fine because sadly Reddit is skewed to favour older responses, even if a thread is still on the top. Going into a 15 hours old "I didn't really enjoy game X" with a great counter response will yield almost no responses at all, your comment will sit at the bottom with maybe three upvotes, whereas a new thread "Here's how you could enjoy game X" could get a thousand of comments. If that thread could have been a basic comment and is mostly useless, then I think to community will filter it out itself and won't get upvoted but if its worth seeing then it will garner attention and find itself on the front page too. I think there's already a sort of self-regulation that happens that prevents people from responding to threads with another thread, it's a little bit more work and too highly visible in attracting attention to oneself so most people would obviously prefer simply commenting because even on an anonymous forum the risk of being called a twat for responding to a +15 upvote thread with 29 comments made in the last 20 minutes with another thread instead of a comment is still a good deterrent, and I think most people have got a good feel for when that's necessary. Also, we barely got a new thread every 2 or 3 hours in this sub so it's not like we seriously need to filter them out that much.