Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jackal
That makes no sense. You can't apply a standard higher than a game aspires to. The developers KNEW these games you're talking about were going to be free, and their production was built around that reality. Saying "I wouldn't have paid for this" is being utterly redundant. Of course you wouldn't. That's the point of the game's existence.
Anyway, I actually agree with parts of what you're trying to say here. If time and money are important to a gamer, they're especially important to a developer. The less they have of each, the greater the likelihood a game will be lacking in several areas. That's true even of commercial adventures, which are rarely "backed" with publisher money during production, either. But it's especially true of amateur developers making games in their spare time.
BUT... if you actually carry a little respect INTO an amateur game, you're likely to see not only a lot to value in the better ones, but an appreciation of the incredible amount of work and skill that's gone into creating them from the ground up. That's all anyone's really saying here. Anyone can be a critic, and the less you know about the topic, the easier it is.
Oh, and the notion that a game CAN'T be as a good as a commercial game is just nonsense. It will almost certainly never LOOK as good, but that's the only thing close to a certainty. Money and talent are often connected, but just as often not. Making arguments about an "ideal world" is useless.
|
Why should I be carrying respect? It's up to the game to make me respect the effort put in.
