Watch Dogs announced

UFOs, lost socks, discuss whatever you like here.

Moderators: Master_Kale, TNM Team

User avatar
Jonas
Off Topic Productions
Off Topic Productions
Posts: 14224
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Hafnia

Re: Watch Dogs announced

Post by Jonas »

Cybernetic pig wrote:Well I may not be in the position to say, but it looks like it is just playing the game for you (which it is, auto aim instakill) now I hear you do not HAVE to use it but if you try shooting em up normally you will die no matter what.
Well I don't know where you've heard that, firefights do happen in SC:C and as long as you're tactically intelligent about it, your survivability is reasonable. But the thing is that the game, if not forces, then powerfully encourages you to switch between different playstyles to suit the developing situations. So you might start by sneaking around and taking out a few outliers with stealth attacks, then you cut loose with the mark and execute you earned from those stealth takedowns, if you do it well you'll still be uncompromised so you can stealth onwards, but you might have just got the attention of some other guys and a small firefight breaks out - you exploit the way the AI will try to seek out and flank your last known position to get the drop on the enemies and you clear the room and move on.

That's an example of how the pacing in the game works. If you try to gun it through the whole game you're going to have a bad time, it's insanely hard. If you try to use mark & execute to get through the whole game, well... you can't - you unlock them with stealth takedowns. If you try to stealth your way through the whole thing it's probably going to be a challenge but you'll have a good time and it's mostly possible, though there are a few setpieces where you have to try a different approach, such as mining the fuck out of an area where you'll be under attack for a while, for example.
I havent tried this myself but I never thought too highly of SC1 etc and now with this mark and kill it looks rediculous. Still you dont have to use it and instead stealth the whole game, but most of the time If I have a gun in my hand im gonna start a war, especially when said guns are upgradable.
I don't think you can blame the game for your refusal to take responsibility for your own fun. I mean in situations where you're literally punished for playing the game the way you want, then yeah you can blame it on the game, but if the game is trying to accomodate several different playstyles, don't criticise it if you find yourself only wanting to pick one certain playstyle all the time.

I mean you're free to criticise it for that, of course, but I'm not sure what to use your criticism for. You have to critique a game on its own terms in order for your criticism to be useful to other people.

Also SC:C has about as much to do with SC1 as BioShock has to do with System Shock. It's such a different game to play, it might as well be a spiritual sequel rather than a proper one. The bottom line being that you won't get a good idea of how the game plays by mentally transposing one of the new features into the old game that you've played.
Hitman Bloodmoney I thought was far better than Splinter Cell in terms of gameplay, even though the shooting sucks. But I enjoyed the stealth because multiple routes, NO mark & kill mechanic and you are rewarded with more cash to upgrade your weapons. If H:BM did not have upgradable weapons though I would have not enjoyed it as much at all. But because it did feature that I had a blast, great music, great atmosphere, some wacky locations. It was a shame the shooting sucked though but everything else was near perfect.
I too enjoyed Hitman: Blood Money much much more than Splinter Cell 1. But Splinter Cell 1 also did not have mark & execute, so no - I doubt Blood Money's lack of that feature was part of why you liked it more than SC1 ;)

Also while I respect Aemer's right to think highly of Blood Money's shooting, I agree with you that it was pretty bad.
AEmer wrote:but to me, the sense that something is "OP" (...which is weird in the first place because my friends and I use the term mockingly...) is really a fear that a product is or will be sub-par in my oppinion, due to a quack making a specific aspect ridiculously powerful.

It's probably still prejudice to call something OP without playing it or examining it closely, but honestly, it conveys a specific feeling, a specific criticism, much better than the more general "I don't think I'll like that", which isn't even really a criticism.
I'm not sure that I agree with that definition of the term, but I understand what you mean now. The whole concept of balance in games is a little problematic to discuss because it seems to mean different things to different people, and besides - a lot of the time you can get amazing gameplay out of really shitty balance. Sometimes, particularly in singleplayer games, the joy of finding a truly overpowered build or strategy is a moment of triumph, rather than the point where the entire game experience breaks down.
In that sense though, the last question should probably be answered in the affirmitive: It's pretty darn stupid to level criticism at products you haven't played, because you complaints, even if taken seriously by someone somewhere, might just result in a gaming experience that translates better into one of those glimpses you got of the game; in other words, at the very best, criticism of things you don't have a clue about because you haven't played them might cause developers to dumb down future games - and that's at the very best.
Amen :smile:
Jonas Wæver
Chief Poking Manager of TNM

I've made some videogames:
Expeditions: Rome
Expeditions: Viking
Expeditions: Conquistador
Clandestine
AEmer
Illuminati
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:04 am

Re: Watch Dogs announced

Post by AEmer »

Also while I respect Aemer's right to think highly of Blood Money's shooting, I agree with you that it was pretty bad.
hey man, it did what it needed to do, it was hard on the hard difficulty level, and you had a lot of incentive to line up careful shots or use terrain to your advantage.

I mean...it didn't feel particularly good, it didn't play well...

But it solved the problem expertly. Kindof like Deus Ex AI....which is horrible and it sucks, but it makes the game play beautifully.
Cybernetic pig
Illuminati
Posts: 2284
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:21 am

Re: Watch Dogs announced

Post by Cybernetic pig »

AEmer wrote: It's pretty darn stupid to level criticism at products you haven't played, because you complaints, even if taken seriously by someone somewhere, might just result in a gaming experience that translates better into one of those glimpses you got of the game; in other words, at the very best, criticism of things you don't have a clue about because you haven't played them might cause developers to dumb down future games - and that's at the very best.
Im sorry, but it is in no way stupid. First I said "Well I might not be in the position to say, but...", Second, with so many games with automated gameplay these days I am Justified in being quick to judge, third, I have seen it in action: you stealth takedown 2 guys which then gives you the ability to INSTAKILL CINEMATIC SUPERBADASS EPIC AUTOMATED MULTIKILLtm up to 5? enemies once upgraded.
Granted you dont have to use it but the whole game is built around that system Id assume.
Still I dont like to judge a book by its cover but with the mass dumbing down, The fact that the devs even have such a mechanic in the game to begin with, the fact I did not like the early SC games and so on.
Still Jonas' post did give some insight into the game and since it has upgradable weapons I might consider getting it and ignoring M&K if I can. Just stealth mixed with gunplay. But I am still pretty certain I wont like it, we shall see...as long as it is cheap.

But saying I have NO understanding of it because I have not played it is false. I have observed and discussed it before, and it has "SUXXORZ LOLOLOLZ" written all over it. The Devs are trolling me whilst thier INSTAKILL CINEMATIC SUPERBADASS EPIC AUTOMATED MULTIKILLtm makes them a shit load of money. Still I dont fully understand it having not played it, but tell me this, is there a hard mode where you start with no M&K and can later get your three upgrades? That sounds slightly reasonable?

Oh, and did I just remember correctly that you can tag them through walls!? Or was it tag them and the tag will stay even through walls.

Anyway, Maybe I was a little quick to shout OP, but just look at it! I think I can be forgiven if proven wrong.
Last edited by Cybernetic pig on Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:39 am, edited 7 times in total.
Cybernetic pig
Illuminati
Posts: 2284
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:21 am

Re: Watch Dogs announced

Post by Cybernetic pig »

AEmer wrote:
Also while I respect Aemer's right to think highly of Blood Money's shooting, I agree with you that it was pretty bad.
hey man, it did what it needed to do, it was hard on the hard difficulty level, and you had a lot of incentive to line up careful shots or use terrain to your advantage.

I mean...it didn't feel particularly good, it didn't play well...

But it solved the problem expertly. Kindof like Deus Ex AI....which is horrible and it sucks, but it makes the game play beautifully.
The shooting mechanics themselves were ok, it was the AI, which were worse than DXs. JUSt Bumrush you, not even strafing. Now I like how it was realistic that The whole damn building would be alerted, but run n gunning is not ideal, at least not taking on the whole level like a madman, you had to be tactical, well it was most likely- start a gun war, get overwhelmed, camp in a corner, blast em as they inevitably come running through the door. or quickly steal a uniform and go back to sneaking around. Realistic but not fun. Even Regen health would have made it fun, but only if it was damn slow could it be justified. But another factor was that there was just no health. But you CAN go on a massacre if you are good, but you will most likely die, AND you get fuck all money for it :( What is the point in upgrading your guns when the game 90% encourages stealth. Still, you are right, the shooting was still fun at the end of the dayjust could have been much much better.
AEmer
Illuminati
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:04 am

Re: Watch Dogs announced

Post by AEmer »

That's the thing though; you're meant to have a really hard time when you funfight. It's a fallback option. You're not in a shooter, you're in an an assasin-game. The gunfights are meant to be about method and surprise, not reflexes.

Anyway, no. It _is_ stupid to be prejudiced and use it to _criticize_.

If you use your prejudice to predict what you think you're going to like, fine, no problem. If you use it to say "this game will have this or that _problem_" - that's where it gets iffy.

You know why? Because it makes game companies focus on gameplay videoes and screenshots and PR. Because it makes them want their games to look good to people who don't take the time to play the game.

This results in games getting dumped down. _prejudice is the reason for poor gameplay and dumbed down games_.

If people didn't worry about the first impressions but only concerned themselves with the actual gameplay and how the games play, particularly if reviewers did this, we'd have better games.
Cybernetic pig
Illuminati
Posts: 2284
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:21 am

Re: Watch Dogs announced

Post by Cybernetic pig »

AEmer wrote:You know why? Because it makes game companies focus on gameplay videoes and screenshots and PR. Because it makes them want their games to look good to people who don't take the time to play the game..
But it doesnt look good at all. Dishonored on the other hand I have nothing but maximum praise for, except maybe a nitpick here and there.
AEmer wrote:This results in games getting dumped down. _prejudice is the reason for poor gameplay and dumbed down games_.
No, money is. And lack of talent.
AEmer wrote:If people didn't worry about the first impressions but only concerned themselves with the actual gameplay and how the games play, particularly if reviewers did this, we'd have better games.
But it looks like it plays bad. Ive been gaming for so long I dont think I need to play it myself and find out for sure. Still, ill give you the benefit of the doubt and give it a try sometime. But my focus is always on the gameplay and I can see that M&K is playing the game for me.
AEmer
Illuminati
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:04 am

Re: Watch Dogs announced

Post by AEmer »

I'm not giving out recommendations to you here; I haven't played splinter cell because it doesn't really tickle my fancy. I'm not a particularly big stealth player - I never have been.
Me wrote:prejudice is the reason games are getting dumbed down
Pig wrote:No, money is. And lack of talent.
Ok, that was a bad way of phrasing it. Prejudice, like what you displays in your criticism, is the kind of thing that naturally leads to games being dumbed down.

There might be other reasons, uncovering them all wasn't my point. My point was, prejudice in criticism is a bad habit, and it's dumb.

Consider trailers. It's fine to say "The Amazing Spider Man is going to be horrible, just look at the trailer!" - at least so long as it hasn't come out. But once it's out, all you should say is "I'm not going to give that movie a chance"; the thing is, you don't actually know that it's going to be bad. You just know that you don't want to spend the money to take the risk.

You can base this oppinion on whatever you want, but you can't bloody well tell that it'll be a bad movie from the concept, or the trailers, or anything like that alone, and the idea that you can is stupid.

I use that word very specifically because of the cultural phenomenon it's grounded in: Acting on instinct. The idea that your instinct will ever be good enough that you can predict the quality of something without actually examining it, based on conjecture from derivative products alone is ridiculous, and it's obviously untrue. You can have an oppinion on a few things, sure, but you can never say anything about the original product without actually studying it and understanding it.

I don't care how many years you've been gaming - I've been gaming for 20 - you're never going to be able to do that simply because it isn't possible.

Listen, it should be really simple to understand: If I know that an impressive gameplay video means my game will sell, and if I know people won't give it a second glance if I don't have such a video, I have to make such a video. If I know I can't make a video that will convince anyone my game is worthwhile, I have to logically spend my money and time working on making sure the video shows something good.

In fact, if this is a prerequisite to the games I make, I cannot make any game that doesn't demo well on a 2 minute youtube video. This is one of the reasons we have ridiculous, dumbed down games today; and that reason can be directly attributed to people with the arrogance to think that they're somehow precognicent with regard to game experiences, people who don't give equal chance to games and judge them on gameplay, but choose to level criticisms of things they don't fully understand instead.

Also, it's an incredibly flippant attitude that you'd be able to level criticism at games without playing them, and it angers me in part because of how crappy such criticism often is.
Cybernetic pig
Illuminati
Posts: 2284
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:21 am

Re: Watch Dogs announced

Post by Cybernetic pig »

You are missing the point. I do not need to play it to know that the Mark & Execute mechanic is not my thing, and will interfere with my enjoyment as a whole. I know what I like, and yes I dont treat all games equal. Once the Gears of War 4 gameplay trailer comes out, im gonna watch it. But like fuck my reaction will be any different to the last few. I Know its gonna be the same old meatheat bullshit, they are not gonna suddenly change it to a deep and thought provoking game, they would lose all thier customers.

Now as for treating games equal without letting my personal taste cloud my views and instead just trying them- I dont have the time, patience or money. Especially after all the bullshit of recent years.

But regardless I have enough understanding of game design to make an accurate guess to whether or not i'll like a game. Id rather make an accurate guess than waste my money and time finding out for sure,
especially since there are hardly any unique games made anymore. If it is Alien to me then I'll hold back my criticisms. :roll:

I have no idea what to make of your prejudice causes dumbing down argument, got a single fact to back that up? C'mon we all know it is money being the deciding factor.

Furthermore I usually read multiple reviews and other sources of information about a game before I buy it. The reason I have not even considered that for splinter cell conviction is because the negatives outweigh the positives, and I am fussy with my games. And I know more about the game than you think anyway, Like I said I have had discussions about it before and have seen a fair amount of it in action. Another thing I did not like- the highlighting, cool idea, but I dont enjoy having my hand held.

You are probably being hypocritical anyway.
I agree making Criticisms based off a trailer is dumb, but not based off of a gameplay trialer.
Cybernetic pig
Illuminati
Posts: 2284
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:21 am

Re: Watch Dogs announced

Post by Cybernetic pig »

Cyberpolice catch Hacker mastermind, 21 years old. Cant be such a mastermind if he got caught. :)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... fraud.html
AEmer
Illuminati
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:04 am

Re: Watch Dogs announced

Post by AEmer »

Look, first off, I want to make it clear that this isn't personal to me; I don't have anything against you, and when I use words like dumb, stupid and arrogant, it's to express my distaste for specific actions, not of the person perpetrating those actions. Still, I'm being somewhat gruff, so forgive me if that offends you.
I do not need to play it to know that the Mark & Execute mechanic is not my thing, and will interfere with my enjoyment as a whole.
I'm not arguing with this. This, I think is absolutely fine, I wouldn't dream of arguing with you about this. The point of contention is whether you're in a position to criticize the game based on a trailer, not whether you're in a position to share your impressions about a trailer.

There's a clear distinction between saying "this mechanic is messed up, it was a mistake to make it like this" and "I will not play this game because it doesn't look like I will like it". One clearly attributes a specific fault to the game, and by extension passes judgement on the game and the game developers. The other indicates that you're not willing to give the game a chance, and that therefore you're not in a position to pass judgement.

One is absolutely fine if you haven't played the game. The other is arrogant and flippant and, as I've said before, stupid. In my oppinion, of course.

Jonas was arguing that saying something is OP is a criticism; a judgement. I was arguing that while that's probably true, contextually you could also use it to express a very particular type of dislike, which is what I thought you meant by it, rather than a criticism. But then, you started arguing that criticisms of games are actually ok if you haven't played them, which made me question my assumption.

Because, that, I balk at. Maybe it's a matter of not being entirely on the same page about the terminology; I don't know, but if so, here:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3Acriticism

This is what I mean when I say criticism, and it is a type of expression reserved for either shallow, flippant hipsters, or for people who have taken the time to analyze and study the subject of said criticism.

Now, with that part of the discussion aside...

Do I have any evidence that criticism about products based on derivatives will necessarily dumb the products down? Not any statistical evidence, no.

But look, the calculation is pretty easy: If you need an appealing gameplay trailer to sell your game, then the problem of making a game sell isn't about making a good game, it's about making a game that you can make an awesome gameplay trailer for.

Whether a game is the best game you could make is completely incidental to whether it'll look good in a trailer. In other words, you change the object of game development from making good games to making games that look good in trailers.

Games that are designed to look good in trailers are, almost by definition, going to be dumber than games that are designed to play well. They shift the focus of game development onto visual gimmicks and aesthetics that function well when filmed as a linear progression, which will necessarily make the things not being focus'ed on more shallow. See, for instance, the indigo prophecy, or heavy rain, or uncharted, or the last of us, or gears of war or....and the list goes on.

Developing games with the focus that the player must be impressed in the course of no more than 5 minutes of gameplay footage will necessarily make games shallow. If the player was supposed to be impressed after 5 hours with the game, if that was the goal, then we're talking depth; if you make sure to only criticize games you've given that long, then you become part of a culture that will crave impression within that time frame, which would shift the focus from instant gratification and button->awesome to, you know, depth.

What I'm saying is, of course game developers are going to design using the button->awesome paradigm if the only chance you give games before tearing them apart with criticism is 5 minutes. You pretty much _need_ to design for awesome things to happen all the time if your players' attention span is that short, and they must be impressed that quickly.

Now look, is this the only reason a lot of games are fairly shallow these days? No. But criticizing games based on the trailers of the games is definitely taking things in the wrong direction.
Cybernetic pig
Illuminati
Posts: 2284
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:21 am

Re: Watch Dogs announced

Post by Cybernetic pig »

1. The act of criticizing, especially adversely.
2. A critical comment or judgment.

I was just making a critical comment. Yeah that is an early criticism without having hands-on time, but I was bashing it FOR looking like an dumbed down eye-catcher mechanic rather than a fun one. I do not need to play it to know that is what it is. And again, you are forgetting I have discussed it before and have seen it in action, not just a 3min trailer, about 30mins of gameplay.

I am pretty sure, with my experience with gaming, and time discussing/watching SC:C in action, tthat I can make an accurate analysis of the M&K mechanic, and come to the conclusion that I will not like the game much overall.

Like I said I am VERY fussy with my games, especially these days. A game with such a mechanic, and having it being the "highlight" of a gameplay trailer, is enough for me to decide it is not for me. Let alone the time I took upon release observing the gameplay in action.

It works the same as Dishonored, even with a 5min gameplay demo, I KNOW I am gonna like it, and will make a critical comment about it, such as mana regen looks a bit OP.

Also there might be a few surprises/disappointments When I get hands on time with Dishonored, but a gameplay trailer is enough for me to make a critical comment about it, especially when I am familiar with the type of games both SC:C and Dishonored are.

I understand your distaste for early criticism, but it is not like I am some kid who only plays gears and comes along and says "DX:HR looks like a gears rip-off! 3rd person cover, stolen from gears! im not buying that clone"
Cybernetic pig
Illuminati
Posts: 2284
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:21 am

Re: Watch Dogs announced

Post by Cybernetic pig »

AEmer wrote:
But look, the calculation is pretty easy: If you need an appealing gameplay trailer to sell your game, then the problem of making a game sell isn't about making a good game, it's about making a game that you can make an awesome gameplay trailer for.
.
Wrong, both these trailers are awesome!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2j7QU6mVPys

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-x-1fm2cq8
AEmer
Illuminati
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:04 am

Re: Watch Dogs announced

Post by AEmer »

No, they're not. The system shock 2 one is hillariously bad.
And fallout 1 and 2, regarded as very deep, rewarding game experience, would trailer absolutely horrifically. Same thing with Baldurs Gate or Planescape Torment.

This is, by the way, an example of a trailer for a deep and rewarding game experience:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5II83LuAElg

And it's utterly boring, and people will decide never to try it because it looks like too much work, and it doesn't look rewarding, so they never give it a shot.

As a game developer, you're not ever going to make a game that's great at depth if you can't sell it with shallow, instant gratification (which leads directly to dumbed down games), or unless you have a hook you can get people with.

Also, New Vegas was massively dumbed down compared to the old fallouts. It was still a great game, but the fact that it must trailer well because people make snap judgement is probably a big part of the reason it was a dumber, simpler game than it's predecessors.

"1. The act of criticizing, especially adversely.
2. A critical comment or judgment."

Both of those are circular definitions, and they're useless. Besides, I clarified exactlt what definitions I used when I said what I said; the ones provided by that google link.

If you use different ones, fine, but please define them without making them circular.

Anyway, again:
Like I said I am VERY fussy with my games, especially these days. A game with such a mechanic, and having it being the "highlight" of a gameplay trailer, is enough for me to decide it is not for me. Let alone the time I took upon release observing the gameplay in action.
I have absolutely no problem with this. The only problem I have is attributing a fault to something which you're not very familiar with.
I understand your distaste for early criticism
My distaste is for criticism which might not be accurate, and which you should know might not be accurate, and which isn't based on the object you're criticizing but on assumptions that can be turn out to be wrong.

Look, maybe I should give you a concrete example, show you why this is just bad discourse.

http://localhostr.com/file/0vZdqm2u4H2K/corrimao.jpg

This is the picture of a handrail and brick wall in a visitation hall in the city of quarth in HBO's television series "game of thrones". The show takes place in the equivalent of europes dark middle age, and the hall is clearly meant to be very old.

People on reddit saw this, and they were angry. They were angry about the cast metal handrail, and they were angry about the flat brick wallpaper. They felt that this was a blight upon the show, because the scenes had so far been of high quality, with all the stages looking real and convincing.

Turns out, the building is a temple in Russia, and the location was chosen for the authentic, interesting handrail design.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/klong35/1209606872/

This is a picture out of someones vacation photo. The handrail is painted wood, as can be clearly seen, and the "brick wallpaper" is actually finely polished cobblestone. The scene is 100% authentic.

Yet a bunch of presumptious pansies jumped on the assumption that it was metal, because it looks like a specific type of green lead paint often used to protect cast iron from rust, often used by the municipality in cities like New York, London and Amsterdam...and they slighted the show because of this assumption.

This right here is the issue. These people knew that they were making an assumption about what they were about to attribute a fault to something, but they didn't stop to consider if perhaps they just didn't have a good enough understanding to realize that this wasn't a mistake after all. If they had, they wouldn't have made this ridiculous, wrong criticism public.

But they didn't. They assumed that they had the power of observation to clearly see exactly what the handrail was, and upon finding an inconsistency, they attributed the inconsistency to the show, not to themselves, and they didn't even try to figure out whether it was in fact an inconsistency.

This is exactly the issue: You _never_ have enough experience to justify criticizing something you don't have good knowledge of; even if you turn out to be absolutely right, you need to realize that you might turn out to be wrong untill you have knowledge enough to not make assumptions.

Criticism based on assumptions is bad, for the reasons I've stated before. It makes creators worry about shallow qualities rather than deep qualities, because it doesn't matter that what they make is brilliant; they're going to be judged on what it looks like they made (such as a metal handrail in the dark ages), not what they actually made (an authentic wooden painted handrail).

So why bother with authenticity. Why bother flying to russia to get a good location for this scene. Why bother when all your hard work is too complicated for people to appreciate, so they just shoot it down because they don't know any better and don't care to. Instead, the show creators should have arguably build a set that lived up to peoples expectations, which would've been significantly shallower (because it would be _less_ authentic).

Again, it's absolutely fine that you don't give a game a chance. But don't decide not to give a game a chance and _simultaneously_ think you're capable of forming an oppinion on it that's worth anything.
User avatar
gamer0004
Illuminati
Posts: 1215
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 4:53 pm

Re: Watch Dogs announced

Post by gamer0004 »

Doesn't really matter whether or not it's authentic, it should look authentic (note: I don't agree with those posters because I think it looks fine).
"Unrealistic realism."
AEmer
Illuminati
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:04 am

Re: Watch Dogs announced

Post by AEmer »

...that's a really lazy attitude, as a critic. I get why it's something you should be aware of it, as an author, but as a critic, it's really bad form to go after it for lack of authenticity if what it actually lacks is fake authenticity.

I mean, you could complain that the show went for actual rather than fake authenticity, and if you framed it like that, it would be ok I guess (which is _not_ the way the critics there framed it)...just so long as you're aware that you're litterally asking the author to dumb the show down for people who don't know what authentic looks like.

I'm pretty vehemently opposed to that position, but I can understand why people might hold it.
Post Reply