PsySal is a user on 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"

@jennamagius criticism!

wait... damnit :/

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

@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:

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.

@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

PsySal @PsySal

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

· Web · 0 · 1