Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS RIGHT - PERCEPTION OF DESIGNER & PLAYER "RESPONSIBILITIES" IN AMATEUR & COMMERCIAL VIDEO GAMES
Posts
DE
View playlists
CloseUmm, the last time she played Phantom Legacy she didn't even bother opening the skill submenu, she just pounded the enter key and wondered why she died. I tear my hair every time she plays an RPG. And I bet there are people who judge games based on such flawed Let's Plays (Trys... Tries?). It's ridiculous.
I believe it was Max who once said that players want strategic battles, but when they get them they complain the game's too hard and they'd rather have enterfests. Yeah... they just don't want to invest 5 minutes of their time to learn the basics of a battle system, either by going through a tutorial or reading an in- or out-game manual. I can get it when people do this with action games, they're usually very simple, but RPG's???
I believe it was Max who once said that players want strategic battles, but when they get them they complain the game's too hard and they'd rather have enterfests. Yeah... they just don't want to invest 5 minutes of their time to learn the basics of a battle system, either by going through a tutorial or reading an in- or out-game manual. I can get it when people do this with action games, they're usually very simple, but RPG's???
There's something about commercial games : they're not going to be changed and every one knows it, so you like it or you don't, you play it or you don't, there's no use complaining.
Imagine you could follow the making of the game, it would be quite different.
Imagine you could follow the making of the game, it would be quite different.
Another interesting fact : in Mine Craft, almost100% of the players did not like the beds when they came out, Notche kept them, what does that say ?
Queasy
0
author=Dyhalto
This reminds me of this image thread where people were complaining about something the player will look at for all of a minute before moving on, and they wound up driving the spriter to remodel and spend hours fixing it up. What a waste of valuable time.
Is it wrong that I see nothing wrong with this scenario? I hope it's not out of bounds to say that this RPGMaker game is one of the more aesthetically excellent ones; part of this is the massive amount of spritework the team's talented artists put into the game. I won't speak for anyone else, but the only reason I'd even have a reaction to a screenshot like this is because I know the team is striving for something above the average and are willing to put in the work to make their game "special". If it were any other RM game, I'd just have gone through the "oh, the creator is making this by himself, and he's not a spriter anyway. . ." process of thinking and shrugged it off.
Lennon
88
Yeah, like everyone else here I have to agree with this. Especially with Soli's point that even when we do stand up for something in our game it seems we take it too far.
Even though I've never been in this situation, I would find it hard to imaging that I would buckle and change something that made sense. I see that sometimes around here and it's sort of (oddly) heartbreaking in a way.
On a tangent, I'd agree with this. Most let's tryers seem to follow this form of thinking. I think the main reason they do this is to impress their regular viewers: People come to see (YDS especially) reviews curse and scream at the terrible games their playing, so it would make sense to just not try at all in order to curse and scream more.
The only LTer that I recall not doing this was Craze, actually. I didn't watch that many, but still.
EDIT:
This too, actually. This happens all the freaking time around here, it even happens to me in real life sometimes. We're sort of trained to be ultra critical about everything, even if it doesn't make any difference.
IRL I've been known to stop playing a game for a second just to say "That texture is wrong" or "That object isn't placed properly". It gets really distracting, but it's hard not to do this after making games and hanging out in screenshot threads and stuff for so long.
Even though I've never been in this situation, I would find it hard to imaging that I would buckle and change something that made sense. I see that sometimes around here and it's sort of (oddly) heartbreaking in a way.
author=DE
Umm, the last time she played Phantom Legacy she didn't even bother opening the skill submenu, she just pounded the enter key and wondered why she died.
On a tangent, I'd agree with this. Most let's tryers seem to follow this form of thinking. I think the main reason they do this is to impress their regular viewers: People come to see (YDS especially) reviews curse and scream at the terrible games their playing, so it would make sense to just not try at all in order to curse and scream more.
The only LTer that I recall not doing this was Craze, actually. I didn't watch that many, but still.
EDIT:
author=Dyhalto
This reminds me of this image thread where people were complaining about something the player will look at for all of a minute before moving on, and they wound up driving the spriter to remodel and spend hours fixing it up. What a waste of valuable time.
This too, actually. This happens all the freaking time around here, it even happens to me in real life sometimes. We're sort of trained to be ultra critical about everything, even if it doesn't make any difference.
IRL I've been known to stop playing a game for a second just to say "That texture is wrong" or "That object isn't placed properly". It gets really distracting, but it's hard not to do this after making games and hanging out in screenshot threads and stuff for so long.
author=Lennon
I would find it hard to imaging that I would buckle and change something that made sense. I see that sometimes around here and it's sort of (oddly) heartbreaking in a way.
Sometimes it's not a question of making sense. Sometimes it's an issue of skill in a particular field.
Here's a pretty vanilla example.
Say a dude wants to make a game that requires custom resources because of the theme of the game but his custom resources kinda suck. Yet he's enthusiastic about his project and wants to make a game, that's what he's in it for.
Should he have to be set back months/years as he learns how to make high quality pixel art because his stuff doesn't meet the standards of rmn's community?
Should he have to change the theme of his game and end up not making the game he wanted to make in the first place so that he can find resources?
Screw that, at the end of the day I say let the guy make his game.
Sure, help out when and where you can, teach what you know, make/link tutorials and offer advice, but advice should be "take it or leave it" in nature and not "YOU ARE WRONG AND YOUR GAME IS VOID BASED ON X ARBITRARY STANDARDS!"
Here's a pretty vanilla example.
Say a dude wants to make a game that requires custom resources because of the theme of the game but his custom resources kinda suck. Yet he's enthusiastic about his project and wants to make a game, that's what he's in it for.
Should he have to be set back months/years as he learns how to make high quality pixel art because his stuff doesn't meet the standards of rmn's community?
Should he have to change the theme of his game and end up not making the game he wanted to make in the first place so that he can find resources?
Screw that, at the end of the day I say let the guy make his game.
Sure, help out when and where you can, teach what you know, make/link tutorials and offer advice, but advice should be "take it or leave it" in nature and not "YOU ARE WRONG AND YOUR GAME IS VOID BASED ON X ARBITRARY STANDARDS!"
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
author=Feldschlacht IVauthor=SpaceYeah, I don't like this, which is why I avoid most LT. What Sali said has some truth to it as well.
In most of the rm let's try I've seen the people run through everything, skip all the dialogue, avoid or run from battles, etc. They rarely look like they enjoy rpgs and usually just look like they're playing to make fun of something.
I hope I don't do this! I always try to play the Let's Try games the same way I'd play them if I wasn't recording myself, except with some stopping and talking. I fight the battles I'm supposed to fight, and only run when I'm A) on the verge of death, or B) I feel like I'm overpowered and don't want to gain any more levels, which are the same two situations in which I'd run away when playing a commercial game.
When I make LTs, my purpose for doing so is to let the designer see how an experienced player will play the game, to explain any design issues that occur to me as a fellow game designer, and provide feedback on what I perceive as problematic issues in the game. But I know, and I assume the designer knows, that the designer often has good reasons for doing things that I initially perceive as problematic, and they only seem like problems to me because the reasons aren't immediately apparent. I sure hope people I make videos for don't watch through my videos and just mindlessly change everything I mention disliking! Because that would be dumb as shit!
I know that watching other people play my games has been HUGELY helpful to me. For example, with gameplay aspects like puzzles and riddles and exploration, it can be extremely difficult for me to gauge how hard and time-consuming they really are to someone who doesn't know things ahead of time. And as a side-effect of those issues, it can be hard for me to realize when an area has too many random battles - I get in anywhere from 25% fewer to 90% fewer battles than a player who gets lost or has problems with the block puzzles. And as another example, when I watch Creation fight my first boss, I can see that he completely ignores its status effect and wins anyway with little effort, so I know that it's a failure: I meant for the battle to work as a tutorial about responding to status effects, and if you can get through a tutorial battle without understanding or caring about the one thing you're supposed to be learning, it's a pretty worthless tutorial.So I need to increase the difficulty of that battle. None of these are things the LTer actually *says*, but without those videos I would probably not have realized they needed fixing. I don't know how anyone can say that watching someone play your game is anything short of ridiculously, mind-bogglingly helpful.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
author=Lennonauthor=DyhaltoThis too, actually. This happens all the freaking time around here, it even happens to me in real life sometimes. We're sort of trained to be ultra critical about everything, even if it doesn't make any difference.
This reminds me of this image thread where people were complaining about something the player will look at for all of a minute before moving on, and they wound up driving the spriter to remodel and spend hours fixing it up. What a waste of valuable time.
IRL I've been known to stop playing a game for a second just to say "That texture is wrong" or "That object isn't placed properly". It gets really distracting, but it's hard not to do this after making games and hanging out in screenshot threads and stuff for so long.
Hmm? I really don't see how this is a problem. If someone posts a screenshot in the screenshot thread it's because they want to know how to improve it. It's a feedback thread. What's wrong with giving them feedback? If they want advice, give them advice. If they didn't want advice, they wouldn't be posting it in the forums.
author=Solitayre
There is truth in Max's words, but I feel like some people use this as a shield to deflect criticism. Belief that their design, their vision, is flawless and sacrosanct and anyone finding fault with it is playing wrong or just looking for something to complain about. I wouldn't recommend anyone to disregard criticism so easily. This is a distressingly common mindset around here, just look at the RMN Bros projects.
If one person complains about something, you might be able to blame the player. If twenty people have a problem with something, it's time to take another look at it.
But what about the massive gray area between one and twenty?
Opening the door to ad hominem attacks by mentioning one of my own games here, but there's little subject matter on RMN I'm as familiar with, to be perfectly honest. For instance: about seven people had a problem with the battle balance in To Arms! Another five or six told me it was spot on. Those numbers are estimates and I can't read back through the twenty pages of shit fight to actually get a count. The seven had more collective posts than the five or six, of course, and hence it seemed like even more of a majority. Also, no one who DID like the battle balance bothered to post a review. Anyway...
Where do I go with that? I still submit that once you know how to play it, the game is extremely fun. I feel like if you or F-G had approached it with a less critical attitude you may very well have enjoyed it a great deal.
But no one ever gives a creator the benefit of the doubt when they say something like "maybe you are playing it wrong, and should try experimenting with different builds and party
Why is losing a videogame such a rage-inducing experience that you have to condemn the video game? Do you have any idea how many times I LOST Vagrant Story and Final Fantasy Tactics from not understanding the mechanics and getting my ass handed to me by mid-early game battles? It took me probably ten tries between the two games to make any real progress. Did I ragequit? Sure I ragequit? And I said very very vulgar things about the game, and threw my controller, and didn't pick it up again for months.
But that's very very different than signing onto the internet after the first failed attempt and posting a lofty, elevated deconstruction of the battle system which will result in actual changes to the game. The fact of the matter was...I was playing the games wrong. There were choices I could have made to do things differently.
The game over screen is a form of player feedback. I think this form of feedback is acceptable to everyone but RMN critics, who view the game over screen as clear evidence that the GAME has failed, especially if, god forbid, it occurs in the first hour or two of play.
Now obviously...obviously...some games are so fucking bad that there is obviously something wrong with the game. I'm definitely talking most about edge cases here, about games which feature character creation or customizable parties or some player-controlled aspect which can determine success or failure.
Why does the 'burden of proof' have to fall on the game? To be frank, that's simply not where it falls with 'commercial games' and the distinction between commercial and amateur games really really really really is arbitrary. I can't stress that enough.
I have written things for free that are better than things others have been paid money to write. The same is true for everyone reading this sentence who is not Stephanie Meyers.
I believe it's because RMN is not a cooperative site. It's a competitive site, which is reinforced by every aspect of its design.
To get attention, you have to compete for the front page.
You have to compete for high review scores.
You have to compete for monthly feature.
When you have to compete, it's often easier to drag down the competition than it is to uplift your own work. Therefore, it's in one's best interests to harshly criticize other projects in order to lower their perceived value and increase yours. I doubt (many) people do it intentionally, but everything about this site encourages this behavior.
This is an interesting sentiment and is definitely worth considering. Ultimately, though...
Sally, I reject this hypothesis, here's why. The people who are only out to get attention for their own games already KNOW that you catch more flies with honey.
They already know that you can draw more attention to your game by being NICE and offering HELPFUL feedback to others.
So there's definitely more at work here than the *cut-throat nature of making gams*.
Everyone is a critic (I'm guilty of this too). Whether the maker asks for it or not. Sometimes people just want to share their work. They don't always want to hear what someone thinks is wrong with their work.
Space Monkey, I appreciate the vote of agreement in the rest of your post but I just want to point out that this is not what I am saying at all. In fact, I think this is kind of an easily defeated straw man argument that hurts the initial point I was making.
No one puts something on the internet because they don't want feedback.
See, I do want feedback and criticism, I just want it to be a bit more fair. It's bad enough that everything I make will always lose points because I am Max McGee (an indisputable fact), there's also the fact that everything we all make suffers an unseen penalty simply for being an 'amateur game'.
We all have so much unspoken contempt for the hobby we love. It manifests in so many different ways, some harmless, some healthy, and some downright poisonous-- it's really, really pathological.
Lennon
88
author=LockeZ
Hmm? I really don't see how this is a problem. If someone posts a screenshot in the screenshot thread it's because they want to know how to improve it. It's a feedback thread. What's wrong with giving them feedback? If they want advice, give them advice. If they didn't want advice, they wouldn't be posting it in the forums.
The problematic version of that doesn't happen in the screenshot thread. It happens on the gamepages most of the time, from what I've seen.
What I meant was that after critiquing screens for so long you do it unconsciously. After a while this spills over into real life, or onto someones gamepage, where it becomes the aformentioned problem, pretty much because gamepage images are almost final, just advertising for a game in a way.
author=Sailerius
This phenomenon I've noticed a lot more prominently here than at the other RM sites. I don't think it's a matter of familiarity breeding contempt (though that may be a contributing factor). After all, plenty of games are embraced and celebrated at other RM sites even though they're ripped apart mercilessly here.
I believe it's because RMN is not a cooperative site. It's a competitive site, which is reinforced by every aspect of its design.
To get attention, you have to compete for the front page.
You have to compete for high review scores.
You have to compete for monthly feature.
When you have to compete, it's often easier to drag down the competition than it is to uplift your own work. Therefore, it's in one's best interests to harshly criticize other projects in order to lower their perceived value and increase yours. I doubt (many) people do it intentionally, but everything about this site encourages this behavior.
You might counter that with "well, you shouldn't do that. If people stop doing that, then this'll be a nice place", so I'll raise a rebuttal. I want to believe that most users here aren't that vindictive, but the fact remains that this community is held together by a system which encourages that behavior to succeed. As long as the site encourages competition, users will naturally compete with one another.
This type of competition is true in any RM site I've visited. The difference here is that RMN has a leveler playing field and the better games tend to shine through, so they are typically rewarded with greater exposure (they get more comments thereby bumping them up the list, have more subscribers and thereby more notices which will lead to more comments (and probably more updates in the form of blogs), etc..etc..) So maybe its just that the competition is more evident here, rather than it being to a greater degree than any other RM site.
Also, I don't see people dragging down other games for the purpose of raising the relative importance of their own. I am more inclined to believe it has something to do with people feeling that their opinion counts here - that they have a much greater influence of game development (than, say, a commercial game) so they pipe up.
(There is probably some sort of psychological phenomenon underlying all of this - something along the lines of smaller groups and perceived worth in said group)
Very interesting "article" max!
I think the issue is when a company makes a game, they've got a niche in mind, and generally find enough people that fit into the niche to stay profitable. Here, you get so little attention that the need to appeal to every single person is amplified. Unfortunately, this isn't a particularly sustainable attitude, and can cause people to burn out because they're so busy reworking their game to suit everyone that they're no longer getting anywhere.
Hands up if you've changed something in your game because of criticism, only to have someone complain about the exact opposite issue in the new version. People have different tastes, and the key is recognising who your market is, and which criticisms are down to taste and which are down to quality.
I also have been running (and continuously rewriting the highly complex rules of) a LARP for the past six years, so this is something I deal with on almost a monthly basis.
There is a LOT of truth in this post.
Before making a snap-decision to alter your game, you should *really* *really* *really* think about where the "advice" is coming from. 90% of the changes to your game should come from suggestions made by your core tester group--if they're not making any suggestions, get beta testers who are more critical.
You cannot, cannot, cannot sustain *game design by committee*.
I don't think there's much to discuss about this. I think it's all up to the developer to make the right judgement, if it's obvious that you didn't spend a lot of time balancing the game to make sure everything plays right then you know it's up to you to fix it.
I believe having a 'thick skin' when it comes to amateur game developing is helpful as every little critique is really just an opinion of what someone thinks and shouldn't be taken so seriously unless you get multiple masses of people telling you the same critique.
I don't know the main reason other why people make games but for me I find it enjoying that as long as someone finds my work entertaining then it's all worthwhile. This same question "Is the customer always right?" can be applied to nearly everything that isn't professional, amateur art, novels, music and etc.
If your willing to put your own work out there you should be able to take criticism but not let it hurt your pride at the same time, because the critique just might be helpful, I believe that is YOUR responsibility as a developer.
None of this is obvious, dude, so there's definitely something to discuss. In fact you are currently engaged in discussing it. : )
"it's obvious that you didn't spend a lot of time balancing the game to make sure everything plays right then you know it's up to you to fix it."
This is quite false. The man-hours spent (not just by me) testing and balancing the battles in To Arms! probably approaches the number of hours you have been alive. Nonetheless, its battle balance, which I thought was the best aspect of the game, was vigorously attacked in both reviews of the FULL version, while other aspects I felt like I'd spent far less time and effort on were (relatively) praised.
Perceived bad design != lack of effort. This is one of the most obnoxious fallacies that keeps cropping up again and again in this community. The amount of people who have spent tons of time and energy on FUCKING TERRIBLE games is very very high.
"I don't know the main reason other why people make games but for me I find it enjoying that as long as someone finds my work entertaining then it's all worthwhile. This same question "Is the customer always right?" can be applied to nearly everything that isn't professional, amateur art, novels, music and etc."
It can be applied to everything that is professional too, you know. Professional/amateur is a hilariously arbitrary distinction, see above.
"If your willing to put your own work out there you should be able to take criticism but not let it hurt your pride at the same time, because the critique just might be helpful, I believe that is YOUR responsibility as a developer."
This is absolutely right, but it is also the hardest thing you can ask of people.
Why is the burden of how criticism is taken on the creator and not on the critic? That is the opposite of how criticism is treated in many other critical traditions. For instance, in fiction workshops, the burden of giving constructive criticism is firmly on the person giving critique. Is RMN really so different from a workshop environment? I honestly don't think so.
So why is the burden so differently placed and assuming you agree with me so far, what can be done about it?
Kentona
Also, I don't see people dragging down other games for the purpose of raising the relative importance of their own. I am more inclined to believe it has something to do with people feeling that their opinion counts here - that they have a much greater influence of game development (than, say, a commercial game) so they pipe up.
(There is probably some sort of psychological phenomenon underlying all of this - something along the lines of smaller groups and perceived worth in said group)
Crab Mentality?
Max
Before making a snap-decision to alter your game, you should *really* *really* *really* think about where the "advice" is coming from. 90% of the changes to your game should come from suggestions made by your core tester group--if they're not making any suggestions, get beta testers who are more critical.
You cannot, cannot, cannot sustain *game design by committee*.
Another big aspect of this is that you need to consider what is causing the criticism specifically. "Boss is too hard" is a symptom of a score of potential problems. Bad mechanics, unfair enemy design, poorly foreshadowed boss, lack of means to recover from or prevent battle/attrition damage, terrible encounter rate, got lost in dungeon, ect. . Properly interpreting criticism is just as important as receiving it.
Another big aspect of this is that you need to consider what is causing the criticism specifically. "Boss is too hard" is a symptom of a score of potential problems. Bad mechanics, unfair enemy design, poorly foreshadowed boss, lack of means to recover from or prevent battle/attrition damage, terrible encounter rate, got lost in dungeon, ect. . Properly interpreting criticism is just as important as receiving it.
GRS, sure, I can admit all of those are possible factors. Can you admit all of these are possible factors?
*Player does not like creator, player is having a bad day, player skipped tutorials explaining how skills work, player didn't read hints carefully, player approaches battle with inherently flawed strategy and doesn't respond to in-game feedback well enough not to die, etc."
I totally agree with you that interpreting criticism is important...this is something else that I feel like the critic should hold most of the burden of, though.
author=Dyhalto
This reminds me of this image thread where people were complaining about something the player will look at for all of a minute before moving on, and they wound up driving the spriter to remodel and spend hours fixing it up. What a waste of valuable time.
It hurts me so much that that thread is real and not some kind of parody.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
author=Max McGee
The game over screen is a form of player feedback. I think this form of feedback is acceptable to everyone but RMN critics, who view the game over screen as clear evidence that the GAME has failed, especially if, god forbid, it occurs in the first hour or two of play.
Yeah, some players, I feel, don't actually like games. It's not just that they don't like RPGs. They don't like any possibility of losing, which is a pretty important part of the definition of any type of game! (If anything, this might be the reason they like commercial RPGs, which have a tendency to be ridiculously easy compared to other genres. I can't remember the last time I got a game over in a commercial JRPG. It's been years and years.)
This is a bit of a tangent, but honestly, when I'm playing a game, it pisses me off if I never die. If there's no way I'm ever going to lose a challenge, then when I get through it, it doesn't feel like I won. It just feels like I got past it. If a challenge in the game definitely isn't going to defeat the player... it had better be a tutorial, because otherwise I don't know why it's even included in the game. People who complain whenever games involve the possibility of losing are retarded and I don't listen to them.
author=Lennon
What I meant was that after critiquing screens for so long you do it unconsciously. After a while this spills over into real life, or onto someones gamepage, where it becomes the aformentioned problem, pretty much because gamepage images are almost final, just advertising for a game in a way.
No, I have to disagree with this. Feedback is always good, whether the author is asking for it or not. If they care about how good their product is, they will appreciate any useful feedback, regardless of circumstances. To discourage people from telling you the problems with something you've done is the absolute stupidest kind of vanity. Quality is infinitely more important than public opinion.
I've privately applied an "if it's good enough for x commercial game then fuck it" ethos when making stuff, but it's hard to keep that up all the time, especially when you keep seeing evidence to the contrary, sometimes it's easier to go with the flow, I guess, but not really because once you start that habit you're now susceptible to all criticisms whether they're value judgments or legitimate issues. The logical conclusion of this train of thought, for me at least, usually ends in "well if you were serious about making games you wouldn't even be using rpgmaker to begin with, if you learned to program you could be free of annoying engine limitations, and while you're at it you'd better learn make professional quality custom graphics and an original score, you lazy amateur. In fact why not just give up now?" - and the ludicrousness of this scenario, considering that this is an amateur interest and a hobby for the majority of users here, illustrates just how plain wrong most of the criticism dished out to games here is.
While we're at it, you know what else is ludicrous?
The fact that professional games are made by LARGE TEAMS OF SPECIALISTS, not ONE GUY who is expected to magically code an engine from the ground up, write a stellar script, produce quality custom graphics, and an original score.
Amateur games absolutely cannot be held to anything close to the PRODUCTION VALUE standards of commercial games...but that's a story for another day.
I do not know why LTs are getting it hard in this thread... If someone is skipping your battles they're probably boring. I mainly watch YDS's vids and she will play through the battles if they are engaging and aren't attack spam fests. It vexes me that some people are unwilling to see the advantages of being able to gauge players reactions to mechanics or objectives and seeing exactly what they did to deal with them. Yes there is an altered mindset in the player but that's in every testing environment.
As much as I'd enjoy articulating my lengthy opinion on why I completely, absolutely, and utterly loathe the "Let's Try" videos that I've seen, I think that is most likely for another topic.
***
Also, I'd like to stress again this is not the "anti-feedback" thread, the "stop-giving feedback thread", etcetera.
Quality is infinitely more important than public opinion.
This isolated statement is false.
Lennon
88
author=LockeZ
No, I have to disagree with this. Feedback is always good, whether the author is asking for it or not. If they care about how good their product is, they will appreciate any useful feedback, regardless of circumstances. To discourage people from telling you the problems with something you've done is the absolute stupidest kind of vanity. Quality is infinitely more important than public opinion.
Listen, I KNOW feedback is important. I obviously realize that, I take every piece of feedback into serious consideration, if only for a few minutes. My point is that I agree with Dyhalto. Spending hours changing something the player will only see for about 5 seconds is totally pointless. The feedback itself is good, but people need to know where to draw the line for what matters and what doesn't.
I myself have been caught in this before, when I was making a forest chipset. I had about 15 different opinions on what hue the trees should be. Was it nice and helpful to have people consider that? Yes. Would changing the hue to the perfect level be all that important in the long run? Probably not, most players wouldn't notice the difference between "Forest Green" and "Pine Green" while playing. They wouldn't see a problem with the trees unless they were a really offbeat color.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
author=Max McGeeauthor=LockeZThis isolated statement is false.
Quality is infinitely more important than public opinion.
Nope. Being right is more important than being popular, every time.
The feedback itself is good, but people need to know where to draw the line for what matters and what doesn't.
If something would improve your game, it matters. It might be prudent to first work on the things that have a better ratio of impact to time investment. But ultimately, you should perfect your game.
