SHOW:
|
|
- or go back to the newest paste.
| 1 | Don't make ASSUMPTIONS about development. You can provide POSSIBILITIES, but don't present them as definitive explanations or justifications. Don't use invented development issues, which are only *possibilities*, as defense of bad design. Once it's a final product, problems are problems, even if they're understandable. Don't be so sympathetic. | |
| 2 | In Crash 1, the physics *were bad*. They were not *necessarily* hard to program - I know nothing about the programming process of Crash's physics - but they were *definitely* poor. Analyze what's readily apparent. Don't make unsubstantiated claims, about development OR otherwise. | |
| 3 | ||
| 4 | However, be sure to CONSIDER the intent of the developers. The intent does not always need to be discussed outright, but use these considerations to inform critique. | |
| 5 | ||
| 6 | Give EVIDENCE for EVERY claim. | |
| 7 | ||
| 8 | Don't make assumptions about others' experiences, use specific personal anecdotes. | |
| 9 | ||
| 10 | Don't be nice to a game just because people like it. You won't be nice to Uncharted, so why were you to Crash? | |
| 11 | ||
| 12 | What makes an element trivial or difficult? Don't dismiss stuff - go in-depth on everything or don't bring it up at all. | |
| 13 | ||
| 14 | ALWAYS try to give constructive ideas as to how a bad aspect of a game could have been done better, preferably with contemporary examples that didn't have the benefit of hindsight. This requires you to ARGUE WITH YOURSELF. |
