The Players Responsibility?

[GuyNwah]

Bloth has a point that's been obscured in the charges and countercharges, though, which is that as consumers, if we do not demand what we want, we will get no better than what we deserve.

It's not as simple as allowing the free market, with free choice of goods and services to buy, and feedback from informed consumers driving sellers to supply better goods and services. Emerson's famous (and usually misquoted) statement, "If a man has good corn or wood, or boards, or pigs, to sell, or can make better chairs or knives, crucibles or church organs, than anybody else, you will find a broad hard-beaten road to his house, though it be in the woods," does not function as well as it should when there is a cheaper alternative to being better.

The problem is that there is an industry of enormous proportion and influence dedicated to the persuasion of consumers that what can be made cheaper or sold dearer is better than that which is good and worth buying, that what they do not need is what they need most, and that there is no alternative to what is mass produced. And it would not be profitable if it was not damn good at doing exactly that. The entire consumer Internet, just as television before it, is carefully tuned to the expansion of this industry's influence, ubiquity, and persuasive power.

So I can't agree with the way Bloth said it, nor with those who attacked him for using blunt language, but the gist of what he wrote, which is that consumers must educate themselves, resist and ostracize the Mad Men and the shills pretending to be critics, and refuse to connive at the debasing of games and other goods. The power to do so is not in our hands unless we assert it.

 

[StaGiors]

It's also certain attitude. CDPR invest in their projects long term and expect them to be interesting to players for a long time. Like any good book author does. In contrast, many studios (especially dominated by legacy publishers) are pursing a throwaway approach, i.e. they are forced to produce something regularly in some period (a year or two for instance) and they stop caring about their previous work as soon as new one comes out. I.e. compare it to pulp fiction authors who don't care about long term interest (because there is none). That's why they produce simplified trash which is marketed as some new AAA release.

Such kind of short term attitude is a common trend of certain greedy investors which plagues tons of different industries. It results in mediocrity sold for overrated prices. For example such problem is apparent in ISPs situation in US. Why do you think we don't see fiber optical lines everywhere? Because it's long term investment. And investors want short term gains no matter what tomorrow brings, and that's for example investing in trendy wireless networks today. That's why we get such mediocre quality landline Internet while in some other countries gigabit and better are already a norm for quite a while.

Sorry for quoting a post, pages ago, and might have been already discussed in the way that I feel like doing, but here goes. I'll edit mine as I read through the rest.

This is exactly what has been on my mind since I started reading this thread. It is the way economy works. Studios need to have a starting capital in order to begin working on a project. This capital can be obtained in many ways. But since the investor, expects some sort of profit off of his investment, things get kind of muddy.

Because the investor, does not only care about making a lot of money. He cares about making money, in a specific time period, so that he can have another capital to invest somewhere else. This is when studios start sacrificing ideas, or even quality, in order to meet their investors expectation, and thus have their support for the current project, or even their next project (which is usually the "big one").

That is why we get incomplete games, or games lacking in quality, or games that straight up don't work. And as Gilrond said, it happens in every industry. I think it really comes down to this. When the concept of profit enters into an artist's mind, regardless of whether it will be his profit, or some investors, then the project is destined to be a long series of compromises. And a piece of art that is constantly compromised, is only a shadow of what it could have been. A very visible shadow. But as calculated, it usually makes the profit expected of it.

And I guess everyone is happy. Studio's get to do their next thing, investors get to invest some more, and consumers consume whatever is served on them. I do that. I bought Attila. I knew what I was doing. It is a weakness that comes from the fact that I am a consumer. Overcoming that weakness is hard work. I buy a game, so that I can spend some time, thinking about something outside of my own life. So I can take a break. Hard work doesn't go with a break.

"Be the difference you want to see in the world." Well sometimes I just don't feel like trying to be that difference. I'm sure everyone is like that, in one form or another.

About Blue's and Bloth's "dispute". I think Volsung summed it up pretty much. But to answer the question, of whether we should or should not be critical, I'd say both.

If you take me for example, I am very critical of the music that I listen to. I am even more critical of people that listen to music that I feel like is overly simplified and compromised. This is because, for me, Music is everything. It is my biggest interest in life.

Every person has something like that in their lives. For some it might be car manufacturing, or movies, or anything really. This something is what we are passionate about. And as a result of being that passionate, we also get to be critical. We can't be passionate about everything though, and thus we can't be critical of everything. To each their own. I believe this means that in any area, the people who are really passionate, are far less in number that the total consumers. Which is why there is a "pop culture" for everything.

Is however not being critical at all, the way to go? I don't think so. Every art form, or product, or work effort needs people that will be critical. That will strive to make whatever their passion is, better. This should not be confused as passing judgement on others. Because it is not. It is an effort to change something for "the better", which is again relative.


TL DR: As I now finished reading the entire thread, I see that I have not really contributed anything. I won't however delete my post, since I did spend quite some time on it. So yep. Just ignore this. Or read it. Whatever you like, I won't judge.

 

[Aes Sídhe]

Yeah, I should probably let this lie, unfortunately none of the other threads interest me

The point remains though: the OP contained half a dozen or so should we questions. Now, to me such reiterated a use of the auxiliary verb should conveys a strong, almost imperative sense that borders on moral obligation, especially when coupled with the expression «Players' responsibility» and the use of the indiscriminate, all-encompassing, first person plural pronoun we. The case further compounds when I scrutinize the biased way in which the questions have been worded out.

This is a clear example of what is called rhetoric, a purely psychological and emotional pressure to make a reader to agree with the certain point of view. They are stated as questions, which push to answer them. The use of "we" makes it the case that there are only two answers - yes, or no. But, obviously, no one would answer "yes", so the only available option seems to be "no".

Curious, I could've sworn a few people had no problem at all answering differently. I can only reiterate that to my senses there is no imperative delivered by the OP wording, Blo's opinion isn't hidden, but thats just his big personality shining through, I doubt it surprises anyone. And when did we all have to leave our personality and / or opinion at the door to the thread, even if we are the OP kicking off the topic by raising questions? Did I miss the memo ?

Check this Pedants (since we are all here in one place) ! : theres a good chance this perception issue is down to the Atlantic split in English:

Because the main function of should in modern American English is to express duty, necessity, etc. (You should get your flu shot before winter comes), its use for other purposes, as to form a subjunctive, can produce ambiguity, at least initially: I should get my flu shot if I were you. Furthermore, should seems an affectation to many Americans when used in certain constructions quite common in British English: Had I been informed, I should (American would) have called immediately. I should (American would) really prefer a different arrangement. As with shall and will, most educated native speakers of American English do not follow the textbook rule in making a choice between should and would. See also shall.

Should (past form of shall)
Used to ask for someone’s opinion:

What should we do now?
Should we continue our meeting?
Should we go this way?
Where should we go this summer?

I'm afraid its the very fact of "we" following the "shoulds" that makes the text innocent. Rhetoric, btw, isn't what has been described here either, which was much closer to the definition of "propaganda" than the art of effective communication, rhetoric itself isn't pejorative, unless you are against speech.

Oh Yeah... of course theres a "WE", I guess if you choose different then theres not, but even though I suffer the human condition of ultimately being separate from all I perceive just like everyone else... I am not alone.