AGN doesn't lock threads for arguments. That said, each post must contribute to the conversation in a meaningful way.Originally Posted by James24
I have several statements in response to this comment.
1.) This is not a feature exclusive to Zelda Classic, it is the nature of sharing any creative endeavor
Human beings are--by nature--not a homogeneous mixture. We form a mosaic and each individual has tastes and opinions that may not align with yours. You have even admitted this truth in your rather simple model of type A and type B players. A binary model isn't very effective in representing reality but it goes a long way to presenting my point: you've already acknowledged there are players that aren't going to like your quest, and you built the quest with no intention of appealing to them. So why are you giving so much weight to criticism from those avenues? A gamer that plays nothing but Call of Duty will find a game like Skyrim tedious and--if driven to voice an opinion--will complain that the latter isn't a REAL first person game because it doesn't have firearms. Do you think Bethesda Game Studios would pay such a review much mind? Do you think they would go back and alter their already released product to please that player? Or worse, recall the game because of the negative impression? The answer to these questions is "no".
The fact is, if your quest doesn't appeal to somebody they simply won't play it. No one is going to waste their time intentionally playing a quest that isn't suited to them just so they can bash you with negative remarks. There's plenty of other avenues for entertainment even within our two tiny communities.
2.) Most of the aggression you are experiencing is self-inflicted
Following the closure of my first point, your initial post was incredibly aggressive. You explicitly declared yourself to be part of an exceptional minority and you heavily implied that those who you do not consider to be part of your minority are inferior. This is an incredibly elitist attitude and it seems tailored to incite argument. When you place yourself in a 'top percentile' and thumb your nose at the world, the world is going to grab its torches and pitchforks. There were friendlier ways to convey the message that your quest is hard. For instance:
"This is a quest designed to get continue counts into the triple digits. If you play it, be prepared for lots of broken keyboards, ruined controllers, and frustrated hours of Zelda madness". You applauded Nightmare's quests for matching your style. That's the way HE would talk about a challenge quest.
Casual gamers like a challenge too, even if the challenge turns out to be insurmountable. For instance, I found Nightmare's 5th quest entry to be quite enjoyable even though many parts of it were white knuckle frustrating. I did not do well on the continue count in that quest. Does that make me an 'A' gamer?
No, because like I said before, a binary model is far too simple to fit reality.
When you embark on a creative endeavor and share the fruits of your labor with another person you are making yourself vulnerable. Perhaps it is an unsettling sensation but it is inescapable. Rather than shielding yourself by saying others just don't understand your work, take comfort in the knowledge that your efforts brought you joy and there MIGHT be people out there who will share in that joy. Mend after being wounded, don't attack to prevent an injury. If you do the latter, others will attack back. This is the situation you face now, because you raised your swords before you began.
3.) Once something is shared, it belongs to the ages
An English professor once said something that I found incredibly profound: Just because the author wrote the book doesn't mean he knows anything about it. There are depths to our work that we as creators are unable to see on our own. This is why critical reviews exist, to help us identify our flawed patterns and watch out for them in the future.
Suppose somebody writes a book in a genre you consider to be garbage. You leave a review calling the book a travesty because it doesn't align with your tastes. Should the author pay much mind to your commentary? That depends:
How constructive was the criticism? Were there details from the text that you used to justify your aggravation? If the answer is yes, then the author needs to keep these issues in mind for further works to prevent a deceleration in the growth of the audience. If not, the review can effectively be ignored without consequence. Criticism can hurt, but it can also be a useful tool in finding direction for FUTURE projects. The key is to look past the sting of a harsh statement and find the logic behind it. Perhaps it is useful, perhaps it isn't. But you won't be able to see the logic if you don't look past the surface. And to see past the surface you have to see the surface first.
4.) Troll criticism is easy to spot
Going back to point 2, you can gauge whether criticism is legitimate by the amount of detail present in the review. Someone who made a legitimate effort to examine your work with favorable eyes will sandwich harsh statements between encouraging remarks. On the other hand, someone out to harm you with a review will open with a negative point and let it snowball as they progress. Look for these details, recognize them for what they are, and assign weight to the review accordingly.
So here's my advice: don't cloister you quest. Give people a chance to enjoy it, but also give people a chance to hate it. If they hated it, clearly they played it, which means you've had an impact on their life.
Reply With Quote