| Mnementh said: I agree that is a difference. But that's not what you were saying. You said people were criticizing it for being too cinematic. That in general is a critic that is fine. People expect different things from games, some want cinematics, some want gameplay. For the second group a cinematic game might be a subpar experience. For the first group a Mario might be a subpar experience. Also these people that are declaring the game shouldn't be made (for either game, Mario or Detroit) are how many? Ten, Twenty? OK, worldwide it may even be a few hundred. I doubt they influence the general feeling much. They don't invalidate the line of criticism. Only the demand to not making the game goes too far. And these are existing for every game. |
I hate to just parrot you, but this is exactly what I was trying to get at many times. Perhaps I did not express it as eloquently, but the argument had gone so far that it was hard to collect thoughts in such a fashion.
The amount of people who are literally so against a type of game that they go on record saying they don't want those games to exist, and can't even FATHOM how someone can enjoy such a game, are BY FAR a minority. And this is coming from someone who's seen a lot of videos, opinion pieces, and forums around the idea of being against cinematic games. I've seen those kind of communities, and they're far more on the "critique" side than whatever was being expressed originally. These people, "haters" if you will, are rare and are far outnumbered by the people who just criticize the genre. More than likely, the two are being conflated, and that isn't a good thing to do even by accident because you're inflating the presence of a group of people by adding in others who aren't in that group.
Although I'm sure that this conversation has probably run its course ..... this kind of thing is the basis for shutting out opinions of others. If you just keep saying "well ... this group should be discounted as well" eventually you get to the point of homogeneity.
