Thanks. I haven't been updating the blog recently (here's a link if anyone is curious:
http://critical-gaming.com/about/) . Making BaraBariBall (a smash inspired fighting game in Sportsfriends for PSN) took a lot of my time/focus. I also decided to do more open game analysis discussion and projects for people who are interested/dedicated. (PM me if you're either of these)
What about Smash isn't being communicated effectively and objectively? Short answer, all of it. Less harsh answer, we try to explain what they think and feel to the best of our ability. It's great that gamers everywhere attempt challenging conversations/topics. The tricky part is talking about smash quickly turns into a game design discussion, and that's something that's way outside of most player's experience. Playing games well/a lot/competitively is great for learning more about specific games, but that dedication doesn't translate into an understanding of game design.
It's very common for people to attempt to explain things about what smash is or why it's good using these tiny "rules of thumb" type statements about balance, options, control, randomness, etc.. But I've found that with any one of these topics, understanding the real design behind it takes much much more work that most realize; work like years of study, reading, writing, and interestingly playing non-smash games and participating in non-gaming activities.
Whether one goes the subjective or objective route, I don't see enough organized examples/data in most conversations about Smash. I think being driven and compelled by one's feelings is great fuel, but this energy must be used for the right purpose. Yelling and calling others out isn't the right purpose. Backlashing isn't the right purpose.
When I did some of my smash research years ago I polled hundreds of smashers only to draw a few simple conclusions. I also conducted research/experiments with players at my biweekly tournaments. And later I interviewed dozens of players at Apex2013 to get a feel for what "pro" smashers really thought (
turned it into a podcast). Even within a group like "pro smashers" you'd be surprised at the diversity of thought and opinion. The way to get to meaningful, illuminating conclusions is through this kind of effort.
In the world of game design and art so little is "GOOD" or "BAD". 95% is "yeah, well... maybe... it's a lot more complicated than that".
I think the best part about games criticism (talking about game and game design well) is that it gives us the best way to talk about objective things AND subjective things. It helps us understand what the game is and how people might have unique experience because of it. It gives us the structure to map out all opinions and navigate between then without the need to take up sides and fight all the time.
Not to shamelessly plug my own work, but I worked on this with a team and it shows the kind of thing I'm talking about in terms of good games criticism.
www.starseedobservatory.com My analysis/contribution is very firm but fair with the game, Starseed Pilgrim. There are parts of the game that I like and didn't like. But my article was well received by the biggest fans and un-fans (had to make up a word there) and developer(s) of the game. Also on the site you'll find the "wall of quotes" because I felt that it was important to have everyone's voices represented in some way. You'll even find GAF on that quote wall.
Anything less than that, I think, runs the risk of overlooking obvious points, people, and opinions. And that's the kind of thing that makes people really upset. The evidence is right here in the thread. Smash is such a beloved and cautious topic.
