thread: 2006-08-27 : Kerflufflizing
On 2006-09-01, Paul wrote:
Hey Ralph,
Personally, I have absolutely no problem publicly posting criticism about a "for sale" game if I've played it. (Am I wrong to think that most of us are the same on this?)
I have somewhat greater difficulty publicly criticizing a "for sale" game I've read all the way through, but haven't played. But I can do it, and I do.
But that's about my threshold. I can't say I've ever publicly criticized a "for sale" game that I've only read part way through, no matter how strong my convictions about the game's weaknesses. I guess I lack the motivation to plow all the way through a game when I achieve a certain level of confidence that it won't be overcoming the doubts I've developed in the reading I've already done. I guess I doubt my own partially informed convictions. I guess I give the designer the benefit of the doubt that they've done thorough playtesting. And I guess I give the designer lattitude for having design objectives that don't accord with my own.
So I'm curious where you think we should be drawing the line. Currently, you're playing and posting productive criticism about Agon. But that's the public criticism I think we all mostly agree on. Do you agree with me that a culture of public criticism should extend to "read all the way through, but haven't played"? Do you think it should extend all the way to "partially read, but strong convictions"?
Paul
