Aller au contenu

Parcourir les groupes

Photo

Constructive Criticism

- - - - -
Débuté par catabuca , janv. 31 2015 03:05

  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
6 réponses à ce sujet

#1
catabuca
Posté 31 janvier 2015 - 03:05

catabuca
  • Members
  • 3 229 messages

Something often lacking, or lost, when BSN starts to degenerate (I just typo'd that as degenerage - how apt) into slanging matches is the ability to give the devs constructive criticism. We know they appreciate as in-depth feedback as possible - both positive and negative - because it's in their interests to know how something is received, and to get an idea about how to move forward with new projects.

 

With that in mind, I spotted this thread in the feedback forum. As of writing, it's only 2 pages long, but it seems to be doing well. The OP has set out their desire for it to be a reasoned thread where people can give their constructive critiques of DA:I, and has politely 'enforced' that vision so far.

 

I think a thread like this is one we should give our support to. It's taking exactly the kind of tone we should want to foster when it comes to feedback, and I think it's one the devs would appreciate.

 

Thoughts?


#2
BFace
Posté 31 janvier 2015 - 06:21

BFace
  • Members
  • 1 958 messages

Wow. I believe that thread is exactly the kind of thing we need to encourage. 


#3
ChachiBobinks
Posté 04 février 2015 - 09:33

ChachiBobinks
  • Members
  • 1 354 messages

Holy snipes, that thread is beautiful!

 

You know, I did a little experiment last week. Picked three threads I thought could go south really fast. And they did. So I went in and kept saying "Yeah, I hear you - what do you think they should do differently?" or something along those lines. It took a little bit, but people started including suggestions. Changed the tide of the convo. I don't know that it would work in every situation, do you think that kind of changes the way they're considering their complaints? 

 

That certainly appears to be what's going right in this thread. People are thinking about solutions. Also, I like how they do a "compliment sandwich," lol. Its refreshing to read a thread where people praise the right, too. 


#4
Guest_Luther_*
Posté 10 février 2015 - 08:19

Guest_Luther_*
  • Guests

That thread is an excellent find, catabuca.

One of the people in thread mentioned being "leery" of coming off as insulting or ridiculing those who disagree about the romances. Her comment highlights the challenge and the necessity of being constructive: companion (and advisor) sexuality is a deeply personal matter for individual players.

 

I'll give an example. For some, Iron Bull is a lazily written and boorish character who fits the depraved bisexual cliche and so isn't interesting or engaging at all. Yet others think he's a hilariously written character who, while very open about his sexuality, is capable of genuinely tender and thoughtful moments. And yet still others think that by not continuing DA2's approach to romances, one is limiting player choice; the bisexuality of Iron Bull and Josephine only serving as a reminder that BioWare is limiting romantic potential and mods will have to be made to "fix" this. And in response to that last group, yet other people feel that DA2 suffered from erasing any meaningful sexual identity (except Isabela, who was already identified as bisexual in DAO), which robs the companions of another layer of depth even as it pleases those who want zero "restrictions".

 

All four groups, when expressing their opinions honestly and passionately, can potentially start a flame war because each of them are justifiable responses. Fighting, in my experience, tends to come from thinking that any of these opinions are a personal attack (and sometimes they are delivered as a personal attack). Or, worse, that the criticism is made while looking down one's nose at those who disagree (and there are times when this is actually the case).

 

Part of what works in Caja's thread is that (most of) the criticism, positive or negative, is levelled at the content of the game itself. Not at the developers, presuming to be a mind reader and concluding that X must be the way it is because the devs only cared about Y (see my signature as an example of what I mean). And not at other players and fans with labels of stupid or biodrone. One's emotional and intellectual reaction to the content of the game need not be expressed at the expense of those who disagree.

(I know it's hard not to talk about the devs or reference what was said, say, in interviews. But I'm speaking only of the kind of entitled anger with the devs that partially leads to what happened to Jennifer Helper.)

 

I had not thought about steering the conversation towards solutions and asking questions like "How could this be different?". Asking questions to show that one is listening is, in general and on balance, a solid way to have a fruitful conversation. In Caja's thread, people, on the whole, seemed open to listening and talking with each other, not past or at each other.


#5
ChachiBobinks
Posté 13 février 2015 - 09:47

ChachiBobinks
  • Members
  • 1 354 messages

Asking questions to show that one is listening is, in general and on balance, a solid way to have a fruitful conversation. In Caja's thread, people, on the whole, seemed open to listening and talking with each other, not past or at each other.

 

I visited the forums again tonight and I'm seeing a common thread among healthy conversations - that exact thing. Conversations where people are talking to, not at. 

 

Have to wonder what can be done to foster and encourage that kind of environment. It's obviously a good thing. We see evidence of it in some of the tougher, yet more successful threads. It also makes sense on a human level. People don't respond well when the stage for debate is already set. This kind of discussion respects those involved.


#6
catabuca
Posté 20 février 2015 - 11:50

catabuca
  • Members
  • 3 229 messages

I agree on the importance of talking 'to' each other and not 'at' each other. It's something I've personally struggled with, and still do, and am always trying to get better. I'm very long-winded, and feel like I have to get down every bit of reasoning and context for my arguments, which often ends up in them being ignored, or in me becoming frustrated when someone picks one sentence to argue with ignoring the rest.

 

I digress.

 

One thing that's very difficult in these kinds of threads is when one random person will stroll in and say something that isn't constructive, that's argumentative, dismissive, 'trollish', etc. I don't actually believe that 'do not feed the trolls' is necessarily always the best course of action, because sometimes when we talk 'to' each other we can reach understandings. But learning to recognise when it's worth it and when it isn't can sometimes be difficult. Sometimes it's glaringly obvious, and scrolling past the worst excesses of this kind of thing is something I know I've got a lot better at over the years. But I do second-guess myself with those cases that straddle the line. Sometimes I want to engage because I want to at least try and increase understanding, but other times I remember that 95% of the time it's fruitless, and 50% of those times it ends up making a situation worse.

 

But that's just how I react to that kind of post. I can't account for everyone else posting in the same thread, and as such there's inevitably someone who will respond - even to the worst of outright trolls - and things take a quick nosedive. I really don't know what the answer there is. Saying 'don't feed the trolls' often only makes things worse. Misdirection/redirection can be useful, purposefully becoming more involved in the thread to steer it to another place without ever making reference to the troll and their repliers - sort of like distracting everyone else with shiny.

 

I fear I'm veering off the main topic of this discussion - which was about constructive criticism - and into something about how to tackle disruptive behaviour in general, so apologies if this would be better elsewhere. I see it as one of the major problems that needs to be addressed, and there are no easy answers. I do believe, however, that the answer to 'how do you solve a problem like bsn' involves action on more than one front, and that, in turn, depends heavily on whether it's worth it to the parties involved - just how much they want a better bsn.


#7
Guest_Luther_*
Posté 25 février 2015 - 02:59

Guest_Luther_*
  • Guests

I visited the forums again tonight and I'm seeing a common thread among healthy conversations - that exact thing. Conversations where people are talking to, not at. 

 

Have to wonder what can be done to foster and encourage that kind of environment. It's obviously a good thing. We see evidence of it in some of the tougher, yet more successful threads. It also makes sense on a human level. People don't respond well when the stage for debate is already set. This kind of discussion respects those involved.

 

 

One way to fail at creating "that kind of environment", of talking with instead of talking at, is to imitate Tumblr. What do I mean?

Within any fandom, fans become incredibly passionate about characters they love, to the point where any criticism of said character could be seen as a personal attack. Not unlike the discussion about sexuality I mentioned earlier. I've seen dissenting opinion regarded as idiocy. "How dare you criticize [character X]! You could only come to that conclusion if you didn't [read X book, play X storyline in the game, etc]." In this instance, one assumes that these other fans are not as informed as you are and, if they were, they'd come to the exact same conclusions. Should they not, they must be stupid, biased, or incapable of rational thought.

 

As an example, here's a Tumblr post that exemplifies these points: "Seriously have any of you even read The Stolen Throne? Do you know anything about the Purple Cloak battle? ****** read The Stolen Throne before you dismiss Loghain as a character and decide to constantly make anyone who likes him feel like ****. So yeah, if Ostagar factors in at all to your reasons for hating Loghain you can’t convince me you aren’t either a hardcore Alistair fan or a bioware apologist."

 

So there you have it. The author assumes that everyone reading The Stolen Throne will have the same realizations, interpret the content in the same way, and reach the same conclusions as they do. Moreover, while the author claims that Loghain fans are attacked for their support of the character, it goes both ways. I've got a friend that has been visciously attacked for not being a Loghain supporter. Male Loghain fans accused her of being an emotional woman who does not use Reason and Logic™. Even the author of the Tumblr post, while claiming to have been made to feel bad, returns the favor by arguing for a false dichotomy, where Loghain critics or detractors are either "BioWare apologists" (whatever that means; David Gaider has gone on record as saying that Loghain is one of his favorite creations) or a fanboy for Alistair, as if that were an insult in itself (and also implying that Alistair fans are incapable of critical thinking or something).

 

That the author adds the condition of "if Ostagar factors in at all to your reasons for hating Loghain..." isn't that relevant. It's simply another example of assuming that people who don't like Loghain are sheep or whatever who lack critical thinking skills. The thing is, one's opinion is no less legitimate for only going on the content within the games. And one is no less a "real fan" for only having played the games.

 

Now there is more to the post I linked to, but the rest of it is simply opinion, not fact. Opinions not very convincingly argued, either. And I'm someone who does think that Loghain is an interesting and complex character. Maybe Loghain fans have been personally attacked. It wouldn't surprise me. But unlike, say, the discussion of GLBTQ civil rights in America, where there is clearly a wrong side to be on (e.g. agreeing with anything said on FOX News), Loghain is a complex character with good and bad about him. People can choose to focus on one or the other and love or hate him accordingly. The Tumblr posts' author shat on any and all possible opinions that disagree with their own with nothing but personal attacks and ideas that don't seem to hold much water; to me, at least. (This isn't even getting into the problem of a romanticized or glamorized version of a character by fans versus who the character actually is in-game.)

 

These elements of wanting to lash out for feeling victimized, operating on base assumptions about other fans that one does not know with certainty are true, and treating differing opinions as either a personal attack or inferior, make conversation within a fandom a challenge.

 

Solutions are hard to come by, too. Understanding one's motivations can help. Do you want to listen to a differing perspective from your own, try to understand the other fans POV, and engage them either to convince them of your own POV or maybe just to share? Or do you want to belittle, disrespect, or mansplain why their opinion is wrong?

 

Has anyone had any luck simply calling out when someone isn't being constructive? Caja tried that in her thread, and the offending parties simply left to make their own threads, where they could freely assume that no other opinions but their own have any legitimacy.


Retourner dans The Wardens


  1. The BioWare Forum
  2. → Groupes
  3. → The Wardens
  4. → Discussions du groupe