PsySal is a user on mastodon.social. You can follow them or interact with them if you have an account anywhere in the fediverse. If you don't, you can sign up here.

I am extremely not interested in the definition of "criticism" that is like "distinguish good media from bad media".

@jennamagius Or even "some parts of this are good, some parts are bad, distinguish which is which".

Calling out a specific creator whose work I otherwise enjoy Show more

I demand a word that means "engaging with a work in a very active, literary, external-to-the-work way" that is not just the same word as "saying that a thing is bad"

PsySal @PsySal

@jennamagius criticism!

wait... damnit :/

ANyways 1000% with you on this. I even hate that itch.io has a star rating system, it's like a tiny bit of evil managed to work it's way in, even there... booo :(*

· Web · 0 · 1

@PsySal I think that's kinda a mixed bag. I think they provide value in helping people spend limited time efficiently, BUT: not in the way that "Oh, it saves them time because they don't have to play bad games".

More like... it gives information about scope and tone that helps players pick games that match their at-the-time needs.

There's probably a better way to communicate that information that doesn't lend itself to wrong ideas like:

@PsySal "Oh, we should just delete all the one star games because they're bad games"

Or "creator, you created a bad game and you should feel bad."

Those are terrible ideas. I love a one star game, when that's the mood I'm in & the thing I have time for.

@PsySal If people could rate games on like:
Duration
Complexity
Non-bugginess

That's information that could be just as useful but way less normative.

@PsySal I don't even know how to put "non-bugginess" in a positive way that doesn't imply that games shouldn't be buggy.

Buggy games are good! There is a place for buggy games.

@PsySal (Also, "normative" is a great word, but "positive" has the same problem as "criticism" in that it's two nearly unrelated words jammed into the same word and it's impossible to use the less common one because people won't understand you.)

@jennamagius I think @ increpare once kind of hit the nail on the head with, "fun is a word designed to exclude and ostracise" (erm, he put it better than that) And I agree like: if a game crashes a lot that doesn't mean it's one star, or that I won't like it, etc. etc. but! it's useful information.

@jennamagius FWIW I think game developers get a teeeeensy bit defensive about this, for instance if someone wants to know how long your game is... that's fine and very reasonable question. Somehow this all breaks down when you add a rating system to this, because ultimately it's so reductionist. Very few things can be reduced to a number (but maybe Duration, Complexity, Non-bugginess are some of them :)

@PsySal Well, seems like we're completely 1000% aligned on this issue. XD

@jennamagius Agreed! :) It's nice to know someone else thinks this way, too

@jennamagius Yeah! I know I sure love a lot of games that would are reviewed poorly, and am not alone in this.

@jennamagius Agree, it's definitely good to have an idea about something; I like textual reviews for that. There are so many subtleties to a game, and actually when someone writes enthusiastically and specifically about why they love something it's a joy to me, even if I don't understand or it wouldn't appeal in the same way. Or, conversely, if they say specifically things that turned them off (which can be quite varied and valid in so many ways.)