@thatpinguino: I think it only makes sense, and in all honesty, I think it's impossible for art or entertainment not to be shaped by criticism in some form. Even if you get no feedback yourself, you're still going to be making your work influenced by other, better-known work swhich criticism will have had a hand in shaping somewhere along the line.
I think you are right about that obsessive fandom, although I think these negative feelings about criticism can also come out of not having any proximity to it. I see a lot of people in the general public who may not be hardcore into games or films, but still see critic-creator relationships as a battle.
Criticism is often viewed as an act of defiance, but I see it as an act of love. Love isn't an unconditional affair, it's a bond in which one gets an enriching experience out of person/video game/movie/book/etc. and part of that process is through sharing knowledge. In this case, game fandom, we love video games and want to see them be better (hopefully). And game devs want to see their work improve (again, hopefully).
If we're just blindly accepting of what games do without criticizing them because it avoids unpleasantness, then there's no love. To me it all comes down to communication. If we can communicate in a way that isn't harsh and create a bond between players, developers, and critics so that any misconception could be quelled, I think we'll all be better off. I don't know how to begin there, as all three actors (players, devs, critics) all have different wants and such, but we should try.
The internet age basically created a place where people are talking to nobody and everybody at the same time and actions are often misconstrued as being defiant against something, when really we all just want our games to be better (hopefully). Fandoms often consist of 'defenders' of the thing they love unconditionally and to be perfectly honest, there really is no communicating with them. Those who feel entitled are probably too stubborn to create bonds with, at least until they change themselves. However, those who still have this mindset of devs and critics at war with each other and are not entitled (or in fact are outside the fandom) probably see all the backlash that occurs between players and critics and takes that as a basis that critics are making good games fail due to the fact that some vocal majority is making it appear that way. It's just a theory.
We need better communication over the internet and I think we're slowly getting there. If we make a place where the entitled and vitriolic don't have as much power as those who wish to criticize games in a civil manner, I think we'll be better off. No idea how to do it, but I think we should try and make the internet as welcoming as possible and have it be an environment for civil discourse and learning.
We then have controversies like the one 3 years ago where critic-dev relationships were questioned. I think that was more of a wake up call to this notion of needing better communication. Critics should be able to communicate with devs and players should have their say in too; again, we need a way to bring all three parties to a mutual understanding and have the ability to talk to one another constructively. Then we won't have as many issues of players thinking critics are speaking for them and giving their favorite games a 'bad image' as everyone will have a say to a degree. While it won't be perfect, it should be something we should achieve in the future.
Hopefully this made sense (or at least is more legible than what I wrote in your Lollipop Chainsaw blog). Of course, there are going to be disagreements and not everyone will be 100% happy with everything. I think we as a community should accept that not everything will be 100% to our liking, however. Good read. :3
See I think the world building is fine and balanced correctly. Sure, a bit limited in the gangs and npc dialogue strings; but perfect in look and feel for a game that is dour. I think adding more personality would just add 'cheesy melodrama' doesn't need.
Thanks for the comment! Let me tackle this first.
Again, like I said in the review, it's a beautiful version of NY. I'm not going to argue that. The actual art and technical prowess the game has on offer is superb. It's just beyond its beautiful landscapes lies an extremely shallow world. If this were like a painting (for example) of a decayed NY, it would invoke depression. Here, due to its lack of filling its setting with actual substance, it's boring.The problem with games is that we explore them. It's not a 2D thing we look at, it's a 3D world. And it looks great! It just empty. My main gripe (again like I mentioned in the review) is that the game fails to settle on a tone. One thing to have depressing architecture, setting, color palette, but you have to fill it with believable characters and a goal you care about if you want to make the most out of it. This game does not do that.
And y'know what? I forgave the game for its lack of decent world building and for not taking full advantage of its setting and technology to an almost absurd degree. It's okay not to care about the details if you like the mechanics, but I would be lying if I said that the game fails to take full advantage of what it /could/ have been. If you prefer to be entertained without "cheesy melodrama" I guess you got it here. I also didn't suggest that I wanted a zombie apocalypse or that I wanted the game to be lively. If anything, I would've loved it if it were more depressing and realistic. And I guess we're also going to have to agree to disagree about this game showing us any sort of care for the human condition (or showing us the horror of the Apocalypse) beyond 'these knee pads I got from killing this stereotypical looter guy gives me more of a crit bonus, so I'll wear them.'
shivermetimbers's comments