Criticism

[Nepsotic]

I reviewed someone's track before, and long story short, it sucked. I was constructive about why it sucked and offered advice on how to improve it, then I get a PM from them saying how crushed they are and that if I just came to upset him I should leave.

I'm of the opinion that when it comes to criticism, you have to leave your emotions at the door and focus on the facts. Some people actually claim you've personally attacked them when you criticise them or something they've done, to any extent (SJWs are a good example) which is obvious bullshit.

I don't think anything should be immune to criticism, no idea, work of art, no ideology or anything. Recipe for not-goodness.

Conversely, though. I think that you should be able to criticise criticism. I'm talking when it comes to a work, music, art, whatever. If someone says something that's incorrect or just plain bullshit, you should be able to point it out without people telling you how you just "can't handle criticism".

Hopefully someone disagrees with this so we can have an actual discussion.

Cricisms is one of the hardest word to type fast when you've been up for 24 hours.

[Job McYossie]

To be fair, Nep, if you're too harsh during a criticism your valid points are ignored because the person being criticized starts off with a bad disposition on whatever you have to say. A lot of people will stop listening if the feedback starts with "Your thing sucked bad," which, while unfortunate for them to not be able to get through the rest, still makes your feedback ineffective.

[Xavier]

There's always the "what" and the "how".

While I think you are doing fine in the "what" area you could do some work on the "how" you communicate your ideas.

[Alf Shall Rise]

Criticism is supposed to help motivate people and being insulting about it usually just doesn't do the trick. On the flip side, sugarcoating criticism is bad too, unless you're just showing support, but it's possible to be honest and up front about things without acting harsh towards the person or making a mockery of their work. That just gives off vibes that you're looking to put someone down instead of trying to give them pointers on how to improve.

Nobody wants to see their shit slammed, regardless of the flaws, because it's a huge motivation killer. Having a friendly/positive attitude when critiquing someone's thing usually produces the best results, and will be appreciated the most as well.

[Bullet Magnet]

In my experience, when social justice warriors are "criticised" it really is an attack on them, either overtly or because it is a clear (yet often inadvertent) support of a status quo that actively oppresses a demographic that they may well belong to. After the hundredth such "criticism" that week they may be disinclined to provide another detailed one-on-one education that requires several new concepts to be imparted and a very rare willingness of the so-called "critic" to listen and understand. But I can say with confidence that this is not because you hurt their feelings, don't imagine you have that power. They will be quite used to hearing your points every single day, and your wearyingly familiar input, however it may look, will be the least of their worries.

They may also be uninterested in a calm and measured discussion of the topic when the subject of the exchange may well be nothing less than their intrinsic value (and even status!) as a human being. I learned that the hard way by being on the asshole end of that conversation, and it was eye-opening. I can assure you that the real target of criticism in that discussion was me, and I paid attention. It really does hurt when your self-identity is as a good person with progressive ideals and you are made to recognise how many backward, harmful and unhealthy attitudes and views about people you really have and never even think to consider. But I can't claim to have understood that conversation without putting my meagre hurt in perspective, or realising that my feelings with regards to this sort of thing really do not deserve to be protected, and that most of my hurt stemmed from the entitled opinion that they should be.

I was going to go into the main topic of talking criticism after that, but it turned into it anyway. Some people really do need to toughen up but that's something that maybe we should help each other do rather than just declare that it should be that way. But a lot of us are much less tough than we think, we simply don't get criticised nearly as often as we should (often because everyone around us is making the same mistake), and some of the people we think should toughen up are already, by necessity of circumstance, some of the toughest people alive. Don't confuse passion and justified fury for hurt feelings, in some cases that may even be projection on your part.

And really, this: don't criticise unless you really, really know the topic. While being aware that the Dunning-Kruger Effect my be in effect when you think that you do.

[Varrok]

Some people really do need to toughen up but that's something that maybe we should help each other do rather than just declare that it should be that way. But a lot of us are much less tough than we think, we simply don't get criticised nearly as often as we should (often because everyone around us is making the same mistake), and some of the people we think should toughen up are already, by necessity of circumstance, some of the toughest people alive. Don't confuse passion and justified fury for hurt feelings, in some cases that may even be projection on your part.

This is so general... I can't disagree with any of that.

[Stranger4002]

I'm in agreement with what most people (and particularly what Alf Shall Rise pointed out) have said in this thread.

If you approach criticism with a constructive attitude, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about. Providing you kindly pointed out error and how to correct it, then one is not justified in perceiving it to be a personal attack.

I wouldn't beat yourself up about it, your intentions were good.

[SIADmander]

For what it's worth, most of the times I've seen an SJW be lambasted, (at least within the realm of that whole representation in gaming thing), the lambaster is genuinely bitter towards the idea that minorities should be represented more often and more positively.

[Nepsotic]

You're mistaken. The lambaster is usually because the SJWs are attempting to change things that don't belong to them because it upsets them. We're not against more women/minorities in videogames at all, but stop trying to change already existing IPs because upsets your poorly little feelings.

And then they have the gall to call all men rapists etc.

[SIADmander]

Consumer criticism has nearly always helped improve media. Why stop now?

The people claiming that by criticizing games, feminists are censoring them/trying to control them, also play games themselves, right? They have only benefited from giving developers negative feedback in the past. Yet now, because they disagree with these criticisms, they claim them to be somehow immoral. Imagine if no one had said that those "Radical Animal Mascot Games" were getting tiring, because they were afraid of "controlling art". Do we want games to be art, something to be analyzed and criticized, or do we want them to be seen as baby toys for babies ?

[Nepsotic]

also play games themselves, right?

No. And this is the reason why your argument falls flat. These people are not playing games and frankly don't know anything about games. Go watch Anita Sarkeesian's dumb videos if you don't believe me.
People who actually play these games (including women) have no such criticisms. This is because said criticisms are dumb.

[SIADmander]

The people claiming that by criticizing games, feminists are censoring them/trying to control them, also play games themselves, right?

Hey dude read the rest of my sentence

People who actually play these games (including women) have no such criticisms.

This statement is so obviously wrong that it's actually confusing me. Even if Anita isn't a gamer, the movement itself is based around people playing and having these exact criticisms. Come on, what?

[Nepsotic]

I'm in Cornwall right now so I'm going to give you some educational videos. If you look a little deeper, it's not difficult to see the reality.
No, people who play these games do not legitimately have this criticisms.

[SIADmander]

Even me? I play games. I have these criticisms. On any given gaming website, look in the comments section, people want more representation. Do none of them play games?

[Nepsotic]

They want more representation, do they?
Let me tell you something. The main market for the games that people have these "criticisms" about are adult males. Adult males usually have fantasies of being a hulking dude shooting bad guys than a sexy woman. Do you understand this concept? It's basic business, it's what sells.
Now, if this isn't good enough for you I can name you tonnes and tonnes of female characters in games until I get bored. I'll assume I don't need to in this case because I'm pretty sure you'll know a lot of them yourself.

There are no legitimate criticisms. There is only childish whining.

[SIADmander]

They want more representation, do they?

Yes? This question seems kind of unrelated to anything else you said.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/gaming-n...rld-1408464249

There aren't enough female characters until there are as many as male characters.
There aren't enough black characters until there are as many as white characters.
You get the idea.

It would be different if gamergaters weren't the same hardcore gamers who have the opinion that games should be treated as art. Is it art, or is it business? It depends on who they're arguing with.

I have the feeling that if you listed the female characters, there would still be room for improvement in nearly all of the examples. It would be much smaller than the list of male characters. Nearly all of them would be white. Many of them would have been created to sexually satisfy men. Many of them would be optional characters within a large roster.

It's basic business, it's what sells.

Some of the most successful video game characters of all time include abstract shapes, talking animals, chubby little italian men, etc. Gamers have shown time and time again that they don't have to play as characters that are like them, they just want the option, and that's excellent, and also something that developers should always pay attention to. This is a nonsense excuse. Even if it were true, the amount of people that want representation would be reason enough, "from a business standpoint", to have representation.

Seriously. This is outside of the realm of video games, but look in the comments for news on the new Ghostbusters film. People aren't upset that this is bad business. People are upset that not only are the main characters women, but they are women that they don't find attractive.

[Nepsotic]

No, they are women that are not funny, and also unattractive. If they were funny I doubt people would be making fun of their appearance, but they know the film will suck because the actors fucking suck.

There aren't enough female characters until there are as many as male characters.
There aren't enough black characters until there are as many as white characters

I read this paragraph and realised I was totally wasting my time. If you don't see how retarded this statement is then you're fucked.

[SIADmander]

No, they are women that are not funny, and also unattractive.

No, people have criticized them specifically for being unattractive. Melissa McCarthy in Spy was not only hilarious but also received critical acclaim.

I read this paragraph and realised I was totally wasting my time. If you don't see how retarded this statement is then you're fucked.

So you're of the opinion that it's only fair to have white men be in most games.
Perhaps it is you who should take off the blinders!
(See? I can be pretentious too!)