6 ms·

I feel bad for him, but really the problem is he’s made a directorial mistake and it looks like the only point it’s gonna click is when the sales numbers hit.

I feel bad for him, but really the problem is he’s made a directorial mistake and it looks like the only point it’s gonna click is when the sales numbers hit. Will he realize his mistaken then or will he continue to blame the customer?

poszlem 4y ago
I could not agree more. A lot of game producers get this arrogant approach of: "Making games would be such awesome job if it wasn't for those pesky gamers". The question here is: "Is this a really innovative graphical design that will get praised by future generations but is misunderstood now" or "Is this just a bad decision that the creator is unwilling to own". I tend to think it's the latter. Ultimately the sales will tell. Obviously I'm not defending the minority of insane comments made my mentally unwell people, but it does feel to me that the rage-quit was prompted more by the general negative sentiment people expressed about the looks of the game rather than by the personal attacks. We have seen the same thing happen to Star Wars where the legitimate criticism was painted as toxicity of the fandom. To quote another HN comment I saved recently: > “Ultimately, the reason some people get upset when a series changes isn’t because the new game is new, but because the old games get their future cut off. Getting a sequel you don’t want closes the door more definitively than creating a new IP. Nobody wants to see the corpse of something they love puppeted around when it could just be laid to rest.”
- eduction 4y ago
  > Ultimately the sales will tell. If you believe games are at all art, then they cannot ultimately be judged either by commercial or critical success, or even by whether they please their creator. There is something utterly subjective and nondeterminant in the evaluation of art. Obviously, as humans we tend to evaluate the “success” of art on its long term impact. Commercial and critical failures in the short term can and have become treasured as masterpieces in the long term, and bestselling beloved work can turn out to be forgotten quickly.
- sleepybrett 4y ago
  > “Ultimately, the reason some people get upset when a series changes isn’t because the new game is new, but because the old games get their future cut off. Getting a sequel you don’t want closes the door more definitively than creating a new IP. Nobody wants to see the corpse of something they love puppeted around when it could just be laid to rest.” Except in this case, my understanding is that this isn't even true. This game is an alternate sequel to MI2 (which is widely beloved), throwing out the story from MI3 (and maybe Tales? Many fans did not like the story direction of MI3. Perhaps because Ron didn't work on it.. I didn't mind it). So I guess in that case, for the really opinionated MI1&2 fans, this is another bite at the apple.
- generalk 4y ago
  > The question here is: "Is this a really innovative graphical design that > will get praised by future generations but is misunderstood now" or "Is this > just a bad decision that the creator is unwilling to own". I tend to think > it's the latter. Ultimately the sales will tell. The question here is not "should people like a thing," it's "why are people such assholes?" To quote Ron Gilbert's linked post: > Play it or don't play it but don't ruin it for everyone else. It sure seems like this is a fantastic example of the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory [0]: nobody would speak so awfully to Ron Gilbert if they were leaning over his shoulder watching the trailer. [0]: https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/green-blackboards-and-other-anomalies https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/green-blackboa...
- vlunkr 4y ago
  I'm sorry, but getting upset about a sequel you didn't want is an immature and entitled attitude. This is a sequel from the original creator, not some corporate cash-in, what else do you want? Ron Gilbert is not a mind reader, he can't deliver on 1000 contradictory fan expectations. This is the game they wanted to make, that's their right, if you don't like it just move along.
- dylan-m 4y ago
  > We have seen the same thing happen to Star Wars where the legitimate criticism was painted as toxicity of the fandom. Hold on a minute here. Yes, the racist assholes got more attention than they deserved. But Rise of the Skywalker was thrown together by a bunch of marketing executives looking through all that “legitimate criticism”, making a big checklist, and feeding it into their lifeless movie factory to create a giant wish fulfillment fantasy for all those “real fans” who were upset someone would dare to shake up their stale, predictable franchise. It was a terrible movie. Lessons: Disney is a cancer, but also people on the internet, as plentiful as they are, have no idea what they want.
  - bena 4y ago
    This is one area where I think Nintendo and Apple really excel at. They hardly, if ever, cave to user "wants", because they understand that often, the user has no fucking clue what they actually want. It's why they manage to succeed despite initial opinions being so against them. It's because often the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Looking at a thing can only tell you so much, it's only when you are able to actually experience the thing will you be able to judge whether it is good or not.
    - norwalkbear 4y ago
      It's not true in the case of Nintendo. They always actively get JAPANESE feedback for games like Zelda and Pokemon. As western and eastern tastes diverge, you'll see bigger issues. It's one of the reasons Square Enix just sold all their western studios.
    - Wowfunhappy 4y ago
      Users often don't know what they want, but they frequently know better than rando companies. Apple's strategy worked during the era of Steve Jobs because Steve Jobs was miraculously good at intuiting what users want. Since his death, Apple has lost that ability. See: The Butterfly Keyboard, the Touchbar, the 2013 Mac Pro. Apple's recent successes have been things consumers very much said they wanted: iPhones with larger screens, Macs with better performance and incredible battery life. Nintendo does seem to have some leaders with Steve Jobs's talent, but I'd argue they're more hit or miss than he was. The Wii U didn't go so well, and the Wii—while an initial success—was ultimately kind of mixed.
bogantech 4y ago
Disagreeing with the art direction is one thing but people are going beyond constructive criticism by being toxic and throwing personal attacks.
- aliswe 4y ago
  Not to pry, but do you have any examples of this?
  - oneepic 4y ago
    Ron mentioned he deleted some personal attack comments, so some of the closest examples are gone.
  - kemayo 4y ago
    The comments on the linked article feature a number of examples of this, despite already having had the worse stuff moderated-out. For instance: > You are an abhorrent and miserable human being, Ron Gilbert. You should be ashamed of yourself. One can only hope that you retire from the industry and never return. Which, you know, not cool.
  - alophawen 4y ago
    In the article being discussed, Ron writes: > I'm shutting down comments. People are just being mean and I'm having to delete personal attack comments. These comments is what you are requesting. Browse them using wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://grumpygamer.com/rtmi_trailer https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://grumpygamer.com/rtmi_t...
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Go read the HN comments, and then imagine what a cesspool like Youtube or Reddit would do if HN itself was that "down" on it. Personally I think it's a better art style than Tumbleweed, but I had issues with that game's story.
  - blktiger 4y ago
    Some references can be found here: https://kotaku.com/return-monkey-island-ron-gilbert-art-style-angry-fans-1849128586 https://kotaku.com/return-monkey-island-ron-gilbert-art-styl...
generalk 4y ago
"continue to blame the customer?" He's never said that folks were wrong, or blamed anyone for anything. Seems to me like he just wanted folks to not be shitty. Take, for example, this comment by someone calling themselves _Proud Retro Fascist_: > Nice attempt at silencing critics. The game will fail because it is > objectively hideous and you will only have yourself to blame. > > Inthe end all you will have achieved is killing off Monkey Island once more. > This time permanently. > > All you had to do was make a game with an art style that appeals to > everyone, whatever it might be. Instead, you opted for the most repugnant, > revolting and hideous TRASH art style that anybody has ever bared witness to > in a video game. You must be out of your mind. > > All said, try hiring good artists next time... if there is a next time, that > is. > > RIP MONKEY ISLAND I wouldn't blame anyone for being upset after receiving this kind of vile commentary "Objectively hideous;" "repugnant, revolting and hideous TRASH art style." There's nothing constructive or even reasonable there, it's purely nastiness for nastiness' sake. Stay strong, Ron Gilbert, don't let the assholes get you down.
- djur 4y ago
  > All you had to do was make a game with an art style that appeals to everyone, whatever it might be It beggars belief that someone could write this sincerely and not realize how absurd it is. "All you had to do was make something perfect."
  - 4cao 4y ago
    I understood it differently, to mean: "All you had to do was make a game with an art style that does not get in the way [of enjoying the game], whatever it might be." I think this interpretation makes sense, since the original game is primarily story-driven.
- Tarsul 4y ago
  Yeah, that's a very harsh comment. Nonetheless, there is something to be learnt here: If anything, the comments of the fans show that this artstyle alienates many of the fans. So, if for example the artstyle would've been showed at the very start of the development, then the developers could've listened to the fans and changed it. But everyone's in a tough spot now because development is nearly finished (game is planned for this year) and it would be too late to change course. As such, Ron Gilbert can only do one thing: Buckle up, release the game and let it be played by those who are not alienated by the artstyle. Maybe it will charm new fans even more; maybe not. Who knows. However, it certainly is an artstyle that is not "universal". E.g. AAA developers usually refine their main character so much that he appeals more or less universally, they want someone who is liked by everyone. They don't want a main character that is only liked by 50% of the target audience. BUT! This comes with the caveat that these games might be overoptimized for the mainstream and thus being somehow boring. That's why I love what the artists and Ron Gilbert did, even though I am torn on the style myself. Btw. I myself was even more alienated by the artstyle of Broken Age (so much that I never played it) and that was a game where I even invested money in. However, I never could've thrown words at Tim Schafer. And neither on Ron Gilbert, for that matter.
grogenaut 4y ago
Could you summarize what you feel the mistake is? Normally I'd RTFA but in this case it's a lot of arguing in threads and I'm missing context.
- kemayo 4y ago
  Some people don't like the art style chosen for the new game, which is pretty stylized. Some of them are being extremely (vocally) shitty about it.
soneca 4y ago
No, that’s not the problem. Not the problem that’s relevant to this discussion anyway. The problem is that people are either relentlessly telling him that they didn’t like the art or hatefully attacking him for choosing that art style. Hateful is what made him decide to close comments and not share stuff anymore. But relentless, even if polite, criticism also takes a toll. And art style quality is subjective. I, for one, don’t think he made a mistake. If it does hurt sales, it is an objective evidence that it was a mistake commercially speaking. Which is just one dimension. He might still be happy with his decision. Regardless of sales effect though, I think people feel entitled to be heard by him. They are not happy only with voting with their wallets, or just telling friends that they didn’t like the art style, that are making a point of going to him pointing fingers that he messed up. That’s not fine in my view even if they do not use hateful words, which a minority does. But the majority is still pointing fingers at him. For me Ron is doing the right thing in managing all this. Stop sharing stuff, close comments, go back working on it silence. If, because of that, the game is a commercial failure, so be it. It is his risk to take. People are acting outraged no because Ron is screaming rude things back to them, because he is not. People are outraged that he just won’t change the art style at this point. That he is not pulling a Sonic on this. And I think the behavior of those people demanding change is just silly. And dangerous when potentialzed by the scale of the internet. So good for Ron going back to silence. It will be better for him and the team. And, I think, better for the game as well.
norwalkbear 4y ago
Exactly. Top Gun 2 is great example of understanding the audience. it was a love letter to the fans. Gilbert made it all about himself with no awareness of what other people thought. That's his biggest mistake. He keeps saying he making the game HE wants to make. He really doesn't care about the fans, and they noticed. I strongly suspect it will only get uglier between the deep monkey island fans who kept the brand alive and Gilbert. If Ron wants to make art, then make art. But Monkey Island was never art for the sake of art. A far more successful revival that pleased the fans was Broken Sword 5.

poszlem 4y ago

I could not agree more. A lot of game producers get this arrogant approach of: "Making games would be such awesome job if it wasn't for those pesky gamers". The question here is: "Is this a really innovative graphical design that will get praised by future generations but is misunderstood now" or "Is this just a bad decision that the creator is unwilling to own". I tend to think it's the latter. Ultimately the sales will tell. Obviously I'm not defending the minority of insane comments made my mentally unwell people, but it does feel to me that the rage-quit was prompted more by the general negative sentiment people expressed about the looks of the game rather than by the personal attacks. We have seen the same thing happen to Star Wars where the legitimate criticism was painted as toxicity of the fandom. To quote another HN comment I saved recently: > “Ultimately, the reason some people get upset when a series changes isn’t because the new game is new, but because the old games get their future cut off. Getting a sequel you don’t want closes the door more definitively than creating a new IP. Nobody wants to see the corpse of something they love puppeted around when it could just be laid to rest.”

eduction 4y ago
> Ultimately the sales will tell. If you believe games are at all art, then they cannot ultimately be judged either by commercial or critical success, or even by whether they please their creator. There is something utterly subjective and nondeterminant in the evaluation of art. Obviously, as humans we tend to evaluate the “success” of art on its long term impact. Commercial and critical failures in the short term can and have become treasured as masterpieces in the long term, and bestselling beloved work can turn out to be forgotten quickly.
sleepybrett 4y ago
> “Ultimately, the reason some people get upset when a series changes isn’t because the new game is new, but because the old games get their future cut off. Getting a sequel you don’t want closes the door more definitively than creating a new IP. Nobody wants to see the corpse of something they love puppeted around when it could just be laid to rest.” Except in this case, my understanding is that this isn't even true. This game is an alternate sequel to MI2 (which is widely beloved), throwing out the story from MI3 (and maybe Tales? Many fans did not like the story direction of MI3. Perhaps because Ron didn't work on it.. I didn't mind it). So I guess in that case, for the really opinionated MI1&2 fans, this is another bite at the apple.
generalk 4y ago
> The question here is: "Is this a really innovative graphical design that > will get praised by future generations but is misunderstood now" or "Is this > just a bad decision that the creator is unwilling to own". I tend to think > it's the latter. Ultimately the sales will tell. The question here is not "should people like a thing," it's "why are people such assholes?" To quote Ron Gilbert's linked post: > Play it or don't play it but don't ruin it for everyone else. It sure seems like this is a fantastic example of the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory [0]: nobody would speak so awfully to Ron Gilbert if they were leaning over his shoulder watching the trailer. [0]: https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/green-blackboards-and-other-anomalies https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/green-blackboa...
vlunkr 4y ago
I'm sorry, but getting upset about a sequel you didn't want is an immature and entitled attitude. This is a sequel from the original creator, not some corporate cash-in, what else do you want? Ron Gilbert is not a mind reader, he can't deliver on 1000 contradictory fan expectations. This is the game they wanted to make, that's their right, if you don't like it just move along.
dylan-m 4y ago
> We have seen the same thing happen to Star Wars where the legitimate criticism was painted as toxicity of the fandom. Hold on a minute here. Yes, the racist assholes got more attention than they deserved. But Rise of the Skywalker was thrown together by a bunch of marketing executives looking through all that “legitimate criticism”, making a big checklist, and feeding it into their lifeless movie factory to create a giant wish fulfillment fantasy for all those “real fans” who were upset someone would dare to shake up their stale, predictable franchise. It was a terrible movie. Lessons: Disney is a cancer, but also people on the internet, as plentiful as they are, have no idea what they want.
- bena 4y ago
  This is one area where I think Nintendo and Apple really excel at. They hardly, if ever, cave to user "wants", because they understand that often, the user has no fucking clue what they actually want. It's why they manage to succeed despite initial opinions being so against them. It's because often the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Looking at a thing can only tell you so much, it's only when you are able to actually experience the thing will you be able to judge whether it is good or not.
  - norwalkbear 4y ago
    It's not true in the case of Nintendo. They always actively get JAPANESE feedback for games like Zelda and Pokemon. As western and eastern tastes diverge, you'll see bigger issues. It's one of the reasons Square Enix just sold all their western studios.
  - Wowfunhappy 4y ago
    Users often don't know what they want, but they frequently know better than rando companies. Apple's strategy worked during the era of Steve Jobs because Steve Jobs was miraculously good at intuiting what users want. Since his death, Apple has lost that ability. See: The Butterfly Keyboard, the Touchbar, the 2013 Mac Pro. Apple's recent successes have been things consumers very much said they wanted: iPhones with larger screens, Macs with better performance and incredible battery life. Nintendo does seem to have some leaders with Steve Jobs's talent, but I'd argue they're more hit or miss than he was. The Wii U didn't go so well, and the Wii—while an initial success—was ultimately kind of mixed.

bogantech 4y ago

Disagreeing with the art direction is one thing but people are going beyond constructive criticism by being toxic and throwing personal attacks.

aliswe 4y ago
Not to pry, but do you have any examples of this?
- oneepic 4y ago
  Ron mentioned he deleted some personal attack comments, so some of the closest examples are gone.
- kemayo 4y ago
  The comments on the linked article feature a number of examples of this, despite already having had the worse stuff moderated-out. For instance: > You are an abhorrent and miserable human being, Ron Gilbert. You should be ashamed of yourself. One can only hope that you retire from the industry and never return. Which, you know, not cool.
- alophawen 4y ago
  In the article being discussed, Ron writes: > I'm shutting down comments. People are just being mean and I'm having to delete personal attack comments. These comments is what you are requesting. Browse them using wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://grumpygamer.com/rtmi_trailer https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://grumpygamer.com/rtmi_t...
- bombcar 4y ago
  Go read the HN comments, and then imagine what a cesspool like Youtube or Reddit would do if HN itself was that "down" on it. Personally I think it's a better art style than Tumbleweed, but I had issues with that game's story.
- blktiger 4y ago
  Some references can be found here: https://kotaku.com/return-monkey-island-ron-gilbert-art-style-angry-fans-1849128586 https://kotaku.com/return-monkey-island-ron-gilbert-art-styl...

generalk 4y ago

"continue to blame the customer?" He's never said that folks were wrong, or blamed anyone for anything. Seems to me like he just wanted folks to not be shitty. Take, for example, this comment by someone calling themselves _Proud Retro Fascist_: > Nice attempt at silencing critics. The game will fail because it is > objectively hideous and you will only have yourself to blame. > > Inthe end all you will have achieved is killing off Monkey Island once more. > This time permanently. > > All you had to do was make a game with an art style that appeals to > everyone, whatever it might be. Instead, you opted for the most repugnant, > revolting and hideous TRASH art style that anybody has ever bared witness to > in a video game. You must be out of your mind. > > All said, try hiring good artists next time... if there is a next time, that > is. > > RIP MONKEY ISLAND I wouldn't blame anyone for being upset after receiving this kind of vile commentary "Objectively hideous;" "repugnant, revolting and hideous TRASH art style." There's nothing constructive or even reasonable there, it's purely nastiness for nastiness' sake. Stay strong, Ron Gilbert, don't let the assholes get you down.

djur 4y ago
> All you had to do was make a game with an art style that appeals to everyone, whatever it might be It beggars belief that someone could write this sincerely and not realize how absurd it is. "All you had to do was make something perfect."
- 4cao 4y ago
  I understood it differently, to mean: "All you had to do was make a game with an art style that does not get in the way [of enjoying the game], whatever it might be." I think this interpretation makes sense, since the original game is primarily story-driven.
Tarsul 4y ago
Yeah, that's a very harsh comment. Nonetheless, there is something to be learnt here: If anything, the comments of the fans show that this artstyle alienates many of the fans. So, if for example the artstyle would've been showed at the very start of the development, then the developers could've listened to the fans and changed it. But everyone's in a tough spot now because development is nearly finished (game is planned for this year) and it would be too late to change course. As such, Ron Gilbert can only do one thing: Buckle up, release the game and let it be played by those who are not alienated by the artstyle. Maybe it will charm new fans even more; maybe not. Who knows. However, it certainly is an artstyle that is not "universal". E.g. AAA developers usually refine their main character so much that he appeals more or less universally, they want someone who is liked by everyone. They don't want a main character that is only liked by 50% of the target audience. BUT! This comes with the caveat that these games might be overoptimized for the mainstream and thus being somehow boring. That's why I love what the artists and Ron Gilbert did, even though I am torn on the style myself. Btw. I myself was even more alienated by the artstyle of Broken Age (so much that I never played it) and that was a game where I even invested money in. However, I never could've thrown words at Tim Schafer. And neither on Ron Gilbert, for that matter.

grogenaut 4y ago

Could you summarize what you feel the mistake is? Normally I'd RTFA but in this case it's a lot of arguing in threads and I'm missing context.

kemayo 4y ago
Some people don't like the art style chosen for the new game, which is pretty stylized. Some of them are being extremely (vocally) shitty about it.

soneca 4y ago

No, that’s not the problem. Not the problem that’s relevant to this discussion anyway. The problem is that people are either relentlessly telling him that they didn’t like the art or hatefully attacking him for choosing that art style. Hateful is what made him decide to close comments and not share stuff anymore. But relentless, even if polite, criticism also takes a toll. And art style quality is subjective. I, for one, don’t think he made a mistake. If it does hurt sales, it is an objective evidence that it was a mistake commercially speaking. Which is just one dimension. He might still be happy with his decision. Regardless of sales effect though, I think people feel entitled to be heard by him. They are not happy only with voting with their wallets, or just telling friends that they didn’t like the art style, that are making a point of going to him pointing fingers that he messed up. That’s not fine in my view even if they do not use hateful words, which a minority does. But the majority is still pointing fingers at him. For me Ron is doing the right thing in managing all this. Stop sharing stuff, close comments, go back working on it silence. If, because of that, the game is a commercial failure, so be it. It is his risk to take. People are acting outraged no because Ron is screaming rude things back to them, because he is not. People are outraged that he just won’t change the art style at this point. That he is not pulling a Sonic on this. And I think the behavior of those people demanding change is just silly. And dangerous when potentialzed by the scale of the internet. So good for Ron going back to silence. It will be better for him and the team. And, I think, better for the game as well.

norwalkbear 4y ago

Exactly. Top Gun 2 is great example of understanding the audience. it was a love letter to the fans. Gilbert made it all about himself with no awareness of what other people thought. That's his biggest mistake. He keeps saying he making the game HE wants to make. He really doesn't care about the fans, and they noticed. I strongly suspect it will only get uglier between the deep monkey island fans who kept the brand alive and Gilbert. If Ron wants to make art, then make art. But Monkey Island was never art for the sake of art. A far more successful revival that pleased the fans was Broken Sword 5.