on getting criticism

Well, at the same time everyone who likes your work, is also right there is nothing bad on getting a "you are awesome doing this" because all depends on what you decide to do with that feedback/information, not just bad because someone think you are good at something.

I'm agree in some other points tho. Thank you Corv for sharing the link.

 

Precisely. This is the top reply on the topic right here.

And you're quite right, it only makes sense to bring something constructive to the argument if you're actually passionate about it.

Often what we've seen on these forums is people purposely conflating the squelching of outright trolls with the silencing of critics. I've been hearing about a recent wave of bans and so I wonder if that's the case here.

You certainly have a good point here, but the world is still what we make it.

It may not be your responsibility to try and make the world around you a better place, but what do you have to gain by sitting on your hands?

 

Knowing a system doesn't work well doesn't qualify me to fix it. If I do think of a solution, I might propose it. But not having a solution doesn't make my identification of a problem invalid.

 

The biggest reason I stopped playing this game is the approach to moderation here on SotA forums.

Bad intentions being imputed, being told what you mean by a moderator; being spoken to in a patronizing manner while having explained to one how this, that or the other should be expressed.... these are not healthy, sustainable behaviors for the upkeep of a community.

Probably the funniest excuse that both moderators and forum users utilize is that one should criticize in a constructive way. This makes no sense because a) persons do not communicate displeasure in this way necessarily, and b) having parameters for communication like these constitute an additional rule over and above simply respecting ones neighbors space to speak; it is an unnecessary burden to impose which can easily turn into an arbitrarily wielded hammer against the input of another.

Plurality in society is a great thing. The main rule in such a structure is not to infringe on ones neighbor. This infringement is usually understood to be those things that fall into the area of abuse; merely having an unpalatable opinion is not an infringement of anything except the hubris of another.

When such pettiness as complaints over ones tone, ones manner of communication, etc. all count as an infringement, plurality of opinion is lost, and with it humor and the fragile, necessary space for freedom of expression. Only the yes persons remain; and this is just the dynamic which creates the area wherein the emperor will never be told he has no clothes.

The walls of pride, they're high and they're wide; (if you keep them) you can't get over to the other side.

 

In Sept 1997, I found a new Ultima game on the retail shelf, and bought it $47.95, but it was a new Ultima (online what?)... At home I didn't quite understand "why?" I needed to buy another $9.95 additional member fee/month to play, but I did it anyways... My ex-wife was pissed for not asking 1st, but when she played, she was hooked... Problem was we only had 1 phone line and the both of us, including my step-son, couldn't play at the same time, only 1 computer too (Win 3.1, Win 95, then Win 98)... Then ATT offered us 1 mbps DSL, so we could still have incoming phone calls wo/being bumped offline... Then it was a matter of finding "internet sharing" software, my ex was pissed again and without asking, had a 2nd phone line installed for herself...

My 1st experience online was great, ppl everywhere, some on horseback, some walking, I got attacked by a little'itty'bitty snake and started defending myself, when I was half way down on HPs, I fled... This guy on a Black horse rode over and said "hey, go kill it, it's almost dead"... I said "how can you tell?", he said to drag it, I did and defeated it and started to walk away, he said again "are you going to skin it", I said "how do you do that?"... He said use your dagger, I did and got some meat or some such... I thought, "way cool"...

The next time I was on, I got PKed, then again, and again... Crossing a bridge, a group of them came out of hiding and read my signature line...

On UO stratics, everyone was screaming bloody murder, we need a PK switch, Raph Koster was the producer, and refused to even discuss the PK switch, it just wasn't going to happen, in his game... He came up with some Red, Blue, Grey flagging thing, I found out how hard that was to avoid when I was trying to help a friend, and flagged grey, everyone turned on me, killed me, and said "It was my fault for flagging", that was just a BS answer...

I read an early review of UO, and the writer described UO as a "drive by shooting" feast, so they gave a 3 thumbs down for it, not recommended... Don't ask for "proof" it was in 1998 I read it... The gangbangers took over the game and drove most players out, they rage quit... I quit in 2010 after not logging in for 3 month, I figured why should I pay for this any longer, they're not going to fix this... I found an article later that explained why, apparently there was/is a "Gold" dupe that can't be fixed unless the entire game is re-coded from scratch, and EA Games won't spend that much on the game, they just let it run as is: to brag of it being the longest running game in history...

To answer your question: I was a player... I didn't do the beta, but retail release...

 

Ok, so I "was there" too and the answer to your claim is still "no".

 

Raph Koster, in my opinion, comes up with loads of really cool Sounding ideas that just don't work in practice... He is also, in my opinion, a prime example of the phenomena of "Failing Upward."

A wise man once said... some claim it to have been Lawrence "Yogi" Berra, though that is disputed... "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice they are not."

 

Still I ask, what would be the reason to not propose a solution when you have one? I can't understand what the benefit is. Can you explain it? Especially if someone has the time to post (or repost..) complaints.

 

I did not say to not propose a solution if you have one.

 

Coincidentally, Raph speaks to this in his new book, Postmortems. An excerpt was published on Gamastura.

https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/Rap..._brief_history_of_murder_in_Ultima_Online.php

The whole thing is a worthwhile read and he gives insight into a lot of the things they tried -- and failed -- to fix things.

And I was there too....and I'm not sure how any of this has any relevance to his thoughts on getting criticism. If anything, the quote above at least shows some retrospective on it all.

 

What I'm referencing is where you stated that if you have a solution, you "might" propose it. Which also means that you might not. I'm curious as to why that might be.

 

To be fair KGB, you made it sound like you worked for Origin. Anywho, I was there too. Loved every minute of it.

 

1. You have to make a decision - are you hear because you want to be friends with Richard and the Developers and go eating and have parties with them.

If so you better be aware that this will impact your ability to be a constructive source of feedback.
Best is to push back and leave it to the Customers who are emotionally distant enough and able to say what they not like without fear of hurting a friends feelings.

2. More important- apeople regarded haters now on this Forum - prior to that they had been the opposite - members who provided over months and even years constructive , non attacking feedback.

3, You become a hater if your Feedback that is aimed towards making a Game better is taken apart from idiots who miss understood the meaning of feedback and think it is a attack aimed against their friends and beloved community. I hate community members who basic concept on this Forum is a: All what the Developers do is "the right way" and all critics on them is to be considered "bad".

We had an ongoing "organised Group" of people who called all Feedback outside the Community, all negative Feedback , all bad Press - "false".
The arguments had always been: They do not understand the Game, they did not play it , they do not belong to the target audience, they played it not long enough, they did not read the communication, they are using the wrong resource, they did not meet us in the Game to show them how awesome all is, they mean to harm the Game, they are all Fake Accounts of one person, they are only a couple of the same persons on a hate campaign..
And those stupid statements : We will have Millions of Players after release as a response to customers voicing real concern about how the game is in reality perceived outside.
Or this argument: My Friendslist has alot of active players - so this means of course all is Great.
Or the next one: They active Gamers decided to meet on the Main Map to make a Screenshot of them all standing crowded together -
NOW we all need to believe that this Game has countless Players. Look all - How many we are.

I asked myself back then: Why are they doing this. Why are the intentionally trying to create a "Fake" - we have a big Gaming audience. What is bad of us other customers being concerned about the population and trying to help.

And still now it is going on.


Those hardcore Fans considered correct Feedback to be this only: You accept all what the Developers decide and only within this parameters you provide suggestion. It is more a tuning feedback.

Great example was Combat. I remember when a group of Players was formed worthy of Feedback. I mean that was literally the post back then - Only the ones who active used the combat had been considered worthy of it.

The ones who from the start did not like the foundation of the combat and the foundation concept of the idea had been excluded - not even knowing how large the precentage of them are.

That is example of a Pink Bubble. You create your game based on the % of Gamers who approve your decisions - not considering if that may loose you a majority of your already invested supporters.

 

Just to remember

Direct link to article
https://www.raphkoster.com/2017/09/22/31098/#more-31098

Thread on the Forums
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/f...ter-uo-lead-designer-swg-art-director.101079/

Yeah, me too .

@Brugas like your post.
I always tried to give constructive critics and i also allways not only criticise, but also said whats good about SotA or what i like about it.
I tried to point out things and after some time people attacked me beeing a troll or make derailing comments in my threads, they tried to get it locked and reported me for just beeing critic.
It just happened some days ago and keep me away although even people who aren't exactly the same opinion like me, but are also criticers like @MrBlight jump on my side and defend me.
Well these sort of people , when you not in Detail in the same opinion, but in general support critics , what are neccessary to improve the game and develop in the right direction are mostly gone. Also @Hornpipe we not always are having the same opinion , but she did contribute great feedback and detailed analysis on things.
But this Forums get heavily moderated and instead of a conspiracy in the WWW against SotA i got more the feeling of a conspiracy in the forum by some who allways derail threads , say everything is good or denounce you as a troll, because you criticise the game or to be more precise parts of the game.

Comments like that - in all honest cordelayne i allways like your input here - show exactly the attitude we all have.
Less or even nobody feels he can say what he thinks and what he thinks would be neccessary to say to improve the game like he thinks. Honest Feedback are on hold because it would be derailed, you get accused, your thread will be deleted or closed.

q.e.d.
Sorry to abuse your post as an evidence
It's true for me too
@Hornpipe

The way they handle criticism is another thing regarding the reputation in the WWW what need to be fixed to get more players.

 

Why are you not posting criticism any more?

 

Maybe because maybe she still wants to have possibility to post here if she needs to and maybe she got moderated and maybe also warned to be banned?

 

Well professionals should take feedback, is it positive or criticism very seriously.
We are living on a world where there are always people with more knowledge and other views of specific things better as yourself.
Me as a GNU/Linux systems engineer && developer am always open for positive/negative feedback from others. This is where you level up your experience.

So banning players because of feedback is pretty unacceptable. But then again this is typical American behaviour really.

 

An interesting read, thanks fo sharing @Corv

I, personally, try to have a differentiated view on feedback in general and am not a friend of generalised statements such as "People who tell you you’re awesome are useless" or "Everyone who dislikes your work is right". I believe there is useful and useless feedback, regardless of whether it is positive or negative. However, I do agree that valuing the positive feedback more than the criticism, just because it's more comfortable, can be very harmful.

This is true, but also here I think it is important to differentiate and realise that criticism does not necessarily mean that you are doing something wrong. It goes without saying that you can't please everyone. E.g. I personally don't like Overwatch for various reasons, but it doesn't automatically make it a bad game. I think the important question is not only what is the player experiencing, but why is the player experiencing it, and the question whether or not this experience is justified/intended or not and if i should change something about it.

In this sense, I think the most valuable part of that article is:

What I find generally interesting about feedback in general is the variety of ways a feedback can be not only given, but also received.

Schulz von Thun is showing this with a great model called four-ears-model, pointing out that the same message can be received totally differently by different people.

A message like this :
"It's so annoying. You have a million bugs in your game!!!"

can be received in different ways, depending on the dominant layer of the receiver:

• On factual level: The sender says there are a million bugs.
  Possible answer: That's not quite correct. There are some but certainly not a million. Please, don't exaggerate.

• On appeal-level: The sender wants me to fix bugs.
  Possible answer: We will have about 17 more bugs fixed in the next update.

• On self-disclosure level: The sender is disclosing he/she is unhappy and/or frustrated with the bugs in the game (sender just disclosing their feelings).
  Possible answer: We are sorry to hear you are upset. We're working on a plan to increase the amount of hours for bug-fixes (or compensate you, etc etc) (focus on sender's dissatisfaction).

• On relationship-level: The sender is criticising my work and is putting me in a bad light with an unnecessarily rude tone and manner.
  Possible answer: As you may have seen, last month we have fixed twice as many bugs as we normally do. We strongly believe that we are doing a great work and will continue to do so.

But how a message is received does not only depend on the receiver, but is also responsibility of the sender. If the wording in a feedback is emphasizing much more the criticism towards the people behind the game, instead of one's experience, then they should not be surprised that their feedback is much more likely to be received on relationship-level. I believe that if both, sender and receiver, would have this in mind at all times, the communication in the world would be a bit better

 

@Cerus

When i once stated plain and simple:
The game feels grindy, buggy and orphaned.

And it is deleted by a Moderator, what has the Moderator heared then?
And why i'm left with the feeling to express what i think gets deleted?

What do i "hear" then?

Am i wrong with this?
No, it's my experience, my feelings.

Need it to be morderated / deleted?
Depends on perspective i guess.
If you want to shutodown any negativity for sure.
If you take it serious, you would ask why.

 

Because it is useless feedback.

If there's a bug, go report it on the bug forums. If it's already there, then there's no point in reporting it again.

If you feel it's grindy - no kidding? They've gotten that feedback a thousand times. Do you think that reporting it just once more is going to make a difference? Feel free to provide some thoughts on how to make it less grindy, or the feedback has no value.

So on, and so fourth.

A thread like you describe, assuming that it only stated what you said here, is just noise. It serves no other purpose than to antagonize, pester or harass. Those should be removed. Otherwise, the signal-to-noise ratio is extremely poor here.