4 ms·

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". Th

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.

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.