Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9298907" data-attributes="member: 18">Is that you, Bakunin?This is easily the most extreme nihilist take I've ever read re: selling a game!They can absolutely do more than &quot;hope they don't upset the apple cart&quot; or &quot;poke around a bit&quot;! They could do significantly more in-depth research, they could gather different kinds of data from what they do, they could have considered bigger or even small changes than they actually presented, and they could very certainly take a better approach than &quot;0.01% of audience has a 70% approval with zero nuance of this thing&quot; (it wasn't 0.01% but it's down there). They don't want to because they're risk-averse and also don't seem to have a high opinion of their own talent. That's not necessarily a totally bad thing, but it is a specific thing, and it's not the only way it could be.I say &quot;they&quot; but I'm not convinced Perkins or Crawford actually could. I mean, god love 'em, but I think they're pretty much the definition of &quot;milquetoast&quot; when it comes to game design. It's like, they're the Coldplay of game designers. Coldplay sold a lot of records! They're boring, safe, unimaginative, and their biggest hits aren't really that great. But they fill stadiums and they sell records, what more do you want, you unreasonable Ruin Explorer?You see that here even - Perkins says not &quot;trying to prove himself as a game designer&quot;, and it's like, well good thing because you're basically just coasting on the design Mearls, Crawford, Thompson and Lee did back in 2014! Why would we think you, a man who is primarily an editor, is trying to prove themselves as a game designer?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 9298907, member: 18"] Is that you, Bakunin? This is easily the most extreme nihilist take I've ever read re: selling a game! They can absolutely do more than "hope they don't upset the apple cart" or "poke around a bit"! They could do significantly more in-depth research, they could gather different kinds of data from what they do, they could have considered bigger or even small changes than they actually presented, and they could very certainly take a better approach than "0.01% of audience has a 70% approval with zero nuance of this thing" (it wasn't 0.01% but it's down there). They don't want to because they're risk-averse and also don't seem to have a high opinion of their own talent. That's not necessarily a totally bad thing, but it is a specific thing, and it's not the only way it could be. I say "they" but I'm not convinced Perkins or Crawford actually could. I mean, god love 'em, but I think they're pretty much the definition of "milquetoast" when it comes to game design. It's like, they're the Coldplay of game designers. Coldplay sold a lot of records! They're boring, safe, unimaginative, and their biggest hits aren't really that great. But they fill stadiums and they sell records, what more do you want, you unreasonable Ruin Explorer? You see that here even - Perkins says not "trying to prove himself as a game designer", and it's like, well good thing because you're basically just coasting on the design Mearls, Crawford, Thompson and Lee did back in 2014! Why would we think you, a man who is primarily an editor, is trying to prove themselves as a game designer? [/QUOTE]

Verification