The idea that artists shouldn't be told what to change about their art is insane to me. That's one of the central reasons why you produce art and show it to other people: to get feedback. The whole point of showing people your art is so that they will react to it.
Sure, getting people's attention is neat, and receiving praise is super-duper. If you actually want to grow as an artist, though, you need people to tell you what doesn't work. Good artists become great artists through iteration, and part of iteration is finding what went wrong and doing it better next time. And if a bunch of people are mentioning that, hey, maybe the way you handled these characters in your story was super shitty, it behooves you to stop and think about why they reacted that way.
Maybe it's just because I'm an artist myself, but I find infinitely more worth in telling someone what the highs and lows of their work is than any amount of bullshit navel gazing on the piece. I'm not interested in you telling me that this scene is representative of the struggles of modern man in a post-modern society. What I want to know is whether it's making you cry because it's having the intended emotional effect, or if it's because you're literally bored to tears. Because that's useful information that I can use to make myself a better artist and make you a better piece of art to enjoy.
And for anyone worried about the C-word, please let me allay your fears. If you're seriously concerned that a critic is somehow going to censor an artist, don't be. They can't. You know who can? Governments. Save your ire for them.Everyone else is just trying to get you better video games, trust me.
The idea that people didn't like Inside a Star-Filled Sky because they didn't spend much time with it seems woefully backwards to me. It presupposes the idea that the game is inherently good and it's the player who is at fault for just not "getting it."
Now, I know this is gonna sound crazy, but maybe I value my time? Maybe if your game doesn't present something worthwhile up front, I will pass on it? Maybe your game just isn't very good? (Or, perhaps more kindly, just isn't a very good fit for what I enjoy?)
Look, Rohrer, I appreciate that you want to Fight the Good Fight for the Betterment of Mankind and all, but don't act like you're throwing yourself up on a cross for my sins. You want the bottom line? Here it is. Games are luxury items. People don't need them to live, and they certainly weren't getting any cheaper for a while there. We're living in an age where pricing barriers are coming down, allowing more people access to a much wider array of quality titles. That's not a bad thing.
Yes, the Steam Backlog has become something of a legend at this point. No, it is not always fiscally responsible. People should still be discerning in their purchases. But come on. If it's making games affordable and making game producers money, I have a really hard time thinking of regular game sales as some kind of boogeyman that spells the endtimes for video games.
And finally... Look, if you think asking full price up front and then discounting later is going to make people upset, you do realize that it works in the other direction, right? Offering it cheaper up front and declaring that it will be more expensive after launch is also going to annoy people. Anytime people find out they could have gotten a better deal, they will be annoyed. They are the minority of your customers. There is precious little you can do about this. And further, don't think for a second that it's any less manipulative to put your game on sale at launch. Because it absolutely is.
Jesus, the lack of perspective in those people. You know how much pull a fucking community manager has on a product? A percent of a percent of a percent. Your job is to wade into the fucking human filth that is Gamers on the Internet and make sure they aren't stabbing each other with knives. Maybe you collect some data the devs want and send it their way. That's it.
She's a glorified forum admin. Fucking... calm down. She has about as much effect on the direction of Inafude's game as I do.
Ugh. Welp, guess that settles that, then. Time to abandon my really dumb PSN username to make a wholly new PSN account with a slightly less dumb name. I mean, none of this content is going over anyway, so what the hell, right? (Well, Flower and such notwithstanding, but meh.)
Man, I really tried to like PA Report, but Christ if everything Kuchera writes doesn't just end up sounding like a grumpy old man on his porch. Which is a pity, because I don't even really disagree with the point he was trying to make in his article. Just, man, lighten up, Ben!
Why did they feel the need to confirm Luigi in Smash Bros? I thought it was just assumed that everyone who's been in every title since the N64 was going to be in this one too.
I suspect they're just taking any excuse they can to mention the game, so as to keep people thinking about it. I agree, saying Luigi is gonna be in the game is about as revelatory as saying Ken will be in Street Fighter, but I suspect Nintendo is eager -- desperate even -- to remind people that Smash is coming.
I use it a ton. My roommate often wants access to some game or other that's on my account, so she'll log into it in offline mode. (Or vice versa; she'll be online doing something, so I'll just hop into offline mode.) As long as both of us don't wanna play multiplayer stuff at the same time, it works fine.