The Civilization and other TBS type game forums were spotless as far as behavior goes.
One day they made a change on the forum and moderator names looked different from other users (it wasn't intentional but some old formatting that accidentally was leaked out). I was posting like usual on the Civilization forums and they noticed my username looked odd, folks were surprised to hear there even WERE moderators. There simply had been no moderator action on those forums that anyone could remember. The community simply policed itself and users corrected their behavior on their own in a way that could never happen in GTA forums.
That was also the place you saw "reasonable" criticism of the game and respect for it from everyone. It wasn't all positive all the time, but it was balanced in terms of understanding the ying and yang of game development decisions.... and an acceptance that maybe as a user they don't know everything.
To give an example incident. Last year, a well known developer called Flight Sim Labs included malware in their $140 A320 addon. They stated this was DRM. It's purpose was to send a user's Chrome passwords to the developer if they believed the addon was pirated. It did this by checking the name the addon was registered with.
As a community populated by developers, I think people here would recognise this as a bad thing to do. No detection method is perfect, but the specific mode used is particularly crude, and also stealing people's passwords is a no go even if they did pirate your software.
There were users spamming forums to both condemn this behaviour, but also users portraying users who decided to no longer support FSLabs or ask for a refund as simply being cheapskates unwilling to support the flight sim scene (developers are few and far between, and in terms of "number/detail of simulated systems", the FSLabs A320 was the best addon to a consumer grade sim for A320. Obviously most users are not equipped to accurately assess the accuracy of the addon, but it was widely believed to be accurate).
Or vatsim. Vatsim is an online community for people to simulate pilots with actual ATC. Vatsim itself is meticulously organised with rules of conduct, appionted/elected officials etc. This comes into conflict often with the "It's just a hobby/relaxation" crowd. Also giving people power, even over flying pretend airplanes brings out a certain type of person.
AAA titles are far more likely to moderate when you become strident and critical or running a bot. Offensive or entitled jerk gets a much easier time - they always get away with it. There is a lot competitive, violent games could do to preserve accountability as the correlation did not used to be there. Design mostly goes the other way in the way PvP, leagues, matchups and competition that tends to temporary, one off, pair ups and teams. It's encouraged.
It's one of the main reasons I avoid online titles now. I'm having a much happier time with games that treat online as a secondary or optional component, or entirely solo, and are from Indies.
I think a lot of the early systems accidentally encouraged more friendly ways. When pvp was between and within guilds you played with every game, being an asshole often came with consequences. Or you got famous for being the touchy one who will throw toys etc. As its become ever more individualised, and you don't need to pick an individual server with just a fraction of the total users, those natural checks don't apply.
Whats changed over the years I think, are there are more sore losers. The internet provides enough anonymity that they get away with it.
Also, some people are literally addicted to the games, so they are unhappy to be playing and lash out at anyone getting in the way of their fix.
But that is the nature of their target demographic. Why can AAA studios drop a repolished doomclone/shooter turd each year and do good sales? Same reason there are always preteen pop groups every couple of years: because there's a new crop of kids each year to sell your crap to.
I almost like the fact that these games are now polluted with lootboxes, it just lays bare the contempt the studios have for the players, even if it probably is producing a generation of gambling addicts.
Hearts game for the positive social interactions. They like to chat, and give each other "hugglepounces" all the time (whatever those are). They're the ones joining RP guilds, perfecting their avatar appearance, decorating residences, and organizing player-led events for participants from level 1 to level 1023. They actually use the emote gestures. Might cyber with you, if you are nice. If they kill you, it is mainly to watch the victory dance.
Diamonds game for the glory. They want to climb to the top of the leaderboards. If the game gives points, they have a lot of them. They lead PvE dungeon raids, and give helpful tips on how to increase your DPS by 0.1% with only a complicated series of keypresses that must be memorized and replicated with perfect timing. They have max-level characters, with all skills unlocked, and several have solo'd the Big Bad Boss designed for group raids. They do speedruns.
Clubs live for PvP. They lead AvA raids and guild wars. They feel that AI opponents are no challenge at all, and the only way to truly master the game is by defeating human players of equal or greater skill. All griefers are majority Club.
Spades wish to dig up all the secrets. They explore every area, and know where all the easter-eggs are hidden. They have done every quest and read every FAQ, and have likely contributed in some fashion to the wiki. They perform complicated experiments to verify hypotheses regarding formulas and mechanics. They may make obscure references to in-game lore and real-player history and expect you to get them.
Any given player can exhibit multiple types. A Diamond-Club likes to hit the top of the PvP leaderboards, specifically. They want to be named Emperor, or Warlord, or Arena Champion, or whatever title is awarded to the best at PvP. A Diamond-Spade has earned all the possible achievements, especially the secret/hidden ones, 100%ing the game. A Diamond-Heart will group with you to help you earn levels, and will gift you with a master-crafted set of equipment. Heart-Spades will organize scavenger hunts and make puzzles with user-created content. Club-Spades obsessively analyze the metagame, and invent weird character builds specifically to defeat the most popular builds. Club-Hearts are rare, and may do things like organize a fight club of RP duelists.
In my opinion, it's the Diamonds and the Clubs that tend to ruin a game's fan community, with elitism and anti-cooperation. Too many Hearts can make it a bit saccharine, and too many Spades make it nerdy, but as long as either of those two types dominate, the community remains civil. A non-competitive, casual game, or one that favors strategy over twitch/reflex skills tends to drive off the Diamonds and Clubs. While griefer Clubs can make a game tedious for others, a guild of Diamonds is the worst--they're like the cool kids clique in high school, and you aren't good enough to eat at their table. If a game cannot effectively insulate Heart-ish players from the Diamond-dominant and Club-dominant, they will abandon the game, and the community will grow toxic.
If your game does not cater to Hearts, you probably won't want to moderate its message boards.
If you look at the hours played per user grand strategy games and simulations seem to be on the front row. And grand strategy gamers are probably one of the most balanced individuals I've met.
The only definition that I could come up for in the few minutes I spent thinking about it is that the "usual" flaming, hating and insulting gamers just seem to have an unhealthy emotional balance. Some of these I know in "real life" seem to be very disconnected from emotions "offline". But as soon as they turn on the computer, they release all of these stored emotions.
But why, as you imply, more violent games would attract people "who care more about the games they play" (over other types of games)?
Don't e.g. chess players care as much "about the games the play", perhaps more so than some violent FPS player in times spent? Or RPG players?
Would non-violent/competitive games also attract users more passionate for their games too? In that case competitive becomes synonymous with "games that attract passionate users", and the violent vs non-violent distinction is moot.
Else, "competitive" is irrelevant, and it's the "violent" part that matters. In which case, my argument holds: I don't see any reason to believe users of non-violent games are less passionate about their games.
And why would violent games be any more competitive than e.g. Chess, or Poker games, or some multiuser strategy game?
For example they play a battle royale genre game and 20-30 minutes into a match they are one of two teams left and then die blaming some perceived thing that happened like game physics getting in the way, it appears they were shot through a wall, etc. The immature gamer (aka 10-20 years old and maybe beyond) may believe their talents are greater than reality.
This goes beyond age and is common outside of just competitive gaming. In the work place you see plenty of people who think e.g. manager's or other departments don't do anything, that they could run the company better, etc etc. On the flipside, I love hearing about people (in e.g. Overwatch) who get stuck at some ranking, hit a breaking point where they stop blaming others and focus on themselves, then slowly start to ascend.
"The others on the panel also echoed that practical sentiment, and pointed out that developing kinder, cozier games had led to more positive fan interactions. The group jovially argued over who had the best group of fans. "We break their save files every update," said Saltsman, referring to Overland. "No one complains."" [0]
[0] https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-11-05-how-to-des...